Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Training Centres

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will have consultations with a view to acquiring the Harland and Wolff shipyard in the division of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan, soon to be closed, for use as a Government centre to retrain men redundant in other industries for jobs in new or expanding trades.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): There is a Government training centre at Hillington and my right hon. Friend is providing new Government training centres at Queens-lie, Port Glasgow and Dumbarton. These centres should meet the training needs of the area, but we will, of course, keep the position under continuous review.

Mr. Rankin: While recognising what is being done, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he realises that here is an opportunity for us to acquire premises not only at Govan Cross but also at Helen Street which are very large indeed? In view of the need for training and retraining for the new skills in industry on a large scale in circumstances, where possible, to which the unemployed men have been formerly accustomed, is the hon. Gentleman aware that this presents a new opportunity? There is size, suitability and accessibility, and in my view there is need for the Government to consider seriously acquiring these premises for the purposes which I have indicated.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have said that we will keep the position under continuous review. It is important for the hon. Member to appreciate, however, that Harland and Wolff's shipyard premises would not be readily adaptable for use as a training centre. The first thing that we must do is to ensure that the facilities now provided are fully taken up.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number and location of training and retraining centres in Scotland; how many teachers and trainees there are in each: and what subjects are taught in each.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. J. B. Godber): There are three Government training centres in Scotland, at Hillington, Motherwell, and Dunfermline; there are 22 instructors and 203 trainees (including 45 first-year apprentices), at


the Hillington centre, 14 instructors and 121 trainees (including 23 first-year apprentices) at the Motherwell centre, and seven instructors and 67 trainees at the Dunfermline centre. As the answer to the last part of the Question consists of a table, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that detailed reply, but I should like to ask him two questions about it. Firstly, does this include training in the new industries and industries depending upon automation and things of that sort as well as in the old conventional industries? Does it also include training in hygiene, public and personal,

TRADES TAUGHT AT THE GOVERNMENT TRAINING CENTRES IN SCOTLAND


Hillington
Motherwell
Dunfermline


Building
Building
Building


Carpentry
Bricklaying
Bricklaying



Carpentry
Carpentry


Engineering
Engineering
Engineering


Draughtsmanship
Fitting (Jig and Tool)
Centre Lathe Turning


Fitting (Jig and Tool)
Centre Lathe Turning
Capstan Setting Operating


Centre Lathe Turning
Capstan Setting Operating



Capstan Setting Operating
Milling Setting Operating



Milling Setting Operating
Precision Grinding



Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous


Agricultural Machinery repairing
Motor repairing
Agricultural Machinery repairing


Hairdressing (men's)

Motor repairing


Motor repairing




Radio, Television and electronic servicing




Watch and Clock repairing




First Year Apprentice Training Trades


Engineering (Fitting andTurning)
Engineering (Fitting and Turning)
—


Radio and Electronic Servicing




Basic Electrical Work

Mr. Bourne-Arton: asked the Minister of Labour what success he has had in finding employers for the 24 apprentices who recently completed their first year apprentice training course at the Tursdale Government Training Centre.

Mr. Godber: I am happy to say that all the boys have been satisfactorily placed with employers with whom they will be able to complete their apprenticeships.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: Satisfactory though that Answer is, does not this success

sonal, to deal, for instance, with such matters as the epidemic which has occurred in Aberdeen?

Mr. Godber: On the first point, the hon. and learned Member will see when he studies the list in HANSARD that it covers a very wide range. There might be some variation in the definition of the new industries, but the training covers principally building, engineering and a certain number of other industries. On the second point, the hon. and learned Member will appreciate that it will not be possible for us to cover such a wide scale as he was thinking of in the second part of his supplementary question.

Following is the table:

point to the fact that, good though it is, it is not entirely adequate to deal with the whole of this part of County Durham? Will not my right hon. Friend give heed at last to my pleas to him and to his predecessor that another Government training centre should be based in Darlington? Will he also take note that employment prospects have taken a turn for the worse in Darlington over the weekend consequent on the decision of the Minister of Transport not to allow the British Transport Commission to make locomotives, and the fact that the


equipment with which the men could have done so is being shipped off to a rival firm?

Mr. Godber: We have doubled the number of training places at Tursdale for first-year apprentices since January of this year, and I have looked at the question of other training centres on a number of occasions. There is one planned for Billingham, but I could not promise any more until we see how other new centres get on. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I could not comment on the other matter. All I can say is that in this area, as over the rest of the country, the employment position has been improving sharply over recent months.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is all very well talking about doubling this, that and the other, but if one doubles very little it does not amount to much? What we should do is not to double but to quadruple things all along the line. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that mathematical calculations should express the desire of the people of the North-East, which has more Government training centres following the success of the placing of the apprentices who have been trained?

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend will appreciate that we have done a considerable amount in expanding the total numbers as well as the percentages in the North-East, and I believe that we are going ahead well. As regards the desires of the people in the North-East, I want to see that the new centres which we open are fully utilised. I will be then happy to discuss further extensions with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour how many juveniles have completed courses at the Tursdale training centre whose homes are in Gainford, Barnard Castle, Middleton-in-Teesdale and other villages west of Gainford, respectively.

Mr. Whitelaw: None, Sir.

Mr. Boyden: Will the Minister note particularly what was said by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Arton) and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on Question No. 5? Does this not reveal that in Barnard Castle and the area to

the west there is practically no opportunity for young people to get training facilities? Will the Minister seriously consider setting up another training establishment, preferably in West Durham, at a place like Bishop Auckland, Crook or Barnard Castle, or, at the very least, in Darlington?

Mr. Bourne-Arton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Whilelaw: For my part, I invite the hon. Member to remember the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister. It cannot be said that because people from a specific area were not actually given places in the classes at Tursdale no training opportunities are available for them. That is not the fact.

Industrial Training Boards

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour what further progress he is making with the setting up of industrial training beards under the Industrial Training Act; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: I hope to make Orders establishing industrial training boards for the wool and iron and steel industries in about a fortnight's time. There are one or two points outstanding in relation to the definitions of the engineering and construction industries which will entail further consultations. As soon as these are completed, I shall make Orders setting up boards for these two industries.
In the meantime, I am anxious that the members of boards should have an opportunity of meeting together, if necessary in advance of the Orders being made, and meetings are planned for all four boards towards the end of June. I shall, with permission, publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the individuals who have agreed to serve on the wool and engineering boards. I hope to publish the names of the members of the other two boards in the very near future.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in contrast to the reception which he received on the last Question, I have great pleasure in congratulating him on the speed of the development of this training programme? Can he say what progress is being made in providing staff for the training boards and buildings to house them so that progress can be made with as much speed in future as it is being made now?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I am sure that the whole House wants to see the implementation of this Act as quickly as possible, and that is why I have been pressing forward with it. On staff, I am loaning the services of two of my officers to both the engineering and construction boards to assist them until they have recruited staff of their own. The chairmen of the Iron and Steel Board and the Wool Board have themselves arranged the temporary loan of staff for their boards from the Iron and Steel Federation and the Wool (and Allied) Textile Employers' Council respectively. As regards premises, we are making provision temporarily at 32 St. James's Square for the engineering and construction boards. The iron and steel and the wool boards will be able to rely initially on accommodation made available by their Federation and Council.

Mr. Prentice: How soon does the Minister expect to lay the Orders in relation to the construction and engineering boards? Does he think that it will be before the House rises for the Summer Recess? Would he agree that there are still many firms waiting to see what the boards will say and that the boards will not be able effectively to carry out their duties until the House has approved the Orders? Does he agree, therefore, that it is very important to get these two boards, which are the biggest and most important of all, in operation as soon as possible?

Mr. Godber: I share the hon. Gentleman's view very strongly, and I shall be deeply disappointed if I am not able to introduce them before the House rises. I feel confident that I will do so, but there have been real difficulties of definition. This is a terribly complicated matter in these two industries, but my officials have been working wonders in trying to sort things out and I hope that, with good will on both sides, we shall succeed.

Following are the names:

WOOL INDUSTRY TRAINING BOARD

Chairman—Mr. P. M. Shepherd, F.B.I.M., Chairman, Shepherd Holdings Ltd.
Deputy Chairman—Mr. F. Thornton, A.T.I., Chairman, The Wool (and Allied) Textile Employers' Council.

Employers
Mr. H. S. Ambler, J.P., Director, Fred Ambler Ltd.
Mr. G. C. Barber, B.Sc., A.T.I., Director, W. H. and J. Barber Ltd.
Mr. E. S. Booth, Secretary, Wool (and Allied) Textile Employers' Council.
Mr. J. M. Giles, Director, Hunt and Winterbotham Ltd.
Mr. I. McK. Jackson, Director, Messrs. Edward Gardiner and Sons Ltd.
Mr. C. F. Lawton, B.Sc., A.T.I., Director, Fred Lawton and Sons Ltd.

Workers

Mr. W. Fleming, District Secretary, Transport and General Workers' Union.
Mr. N. Newton, J.P., President, National Association of Unions in the Textile Trade, General Secretary, National Woolsorters Society.
Mr. W. E. Nowill, District Official. National Union of General and Municipal Workers.
Mr. J. A. Peel, J.P., Treasurer, National Association of Unions in the Textile Trade, General Secretary, National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers.
Mr. I. Sharp, M.B.E., J.P., Secretary, National Association of Unions in the Textile Trades.
Mr. E. D. Sleeman, Secretary, Yorkshire Power Loom Overlookers Society.

Educational Members

Mr. H. S. Bell, Head of Department of Textile Industries, Huddersfield College of Technology.
Mr. L. T. Jackson, Chief Education Officer, Halifax.
Mr. J. G. Martindale, Principal, Scottish Woollen Technical College, Galashiels.
Mr. J. R. Moore, Principal, Bradford Technical College.

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY TRAINING BOARD

Chairman— Mr. A. L. G. Lindley, C.G.I.A., M.I.Mech.E., Chairman, General Electric Co. Ltd.
Employers
Mr. T. Carlile, A.C.G.I., M.I.Mech.E., Director, Babcock and Wilcox Ltd.
Mr. J. P. Coleman, M.I.E.E., Chairman, Gresham Lion Group Ltd.
Sir Roy Dobson, C.B.E., J.P., F.R.Ae.S., Chairman, Hawker Siddeley Group.
Mr. St. J. de Holt Elstub, C.B.E., B.Sc., M.I.Mech.E., Chairman, Imperial Metal Industries (Kynoch) Ltd.
Mr. L. G. T. Farmer, F.C.A., Chairman, Rover Company Ltd.
Mr. R. A. S. Lomax, A.M.I.Mech.E., M.I.B.F., Managing Director, Ashwell and Nesbit Ltd.
Mr. G. S. C. Lucas, F.C.G.I., M.I.E.E., Group General Manager, Electronics Group of A.E.I.
Mr. S. A. Roberts, M.I.Mech.E., M.I.A.A., Chairman and Managing Director, B.S.A. Tools Ltd.
Mr. T. A. Swinden, Deputy Director, Engineering Employers Federation.

Workers

Mr. H. G. Barratt, General Secretary, Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions.
Mr. W. B. Beard, O.B.E., General Secretary, United Patternmakers Association.
Mr. L. W. Buck, General Secretary, National Union of Sheet Metal Workers and Coppersmiths.
Mr. L. Cannon, President, Electrical Trades Union.
Mr. D. H. Cornwall, Divisional Organiser, Amalgamated Union of Foundry Workers.
Mr. G. H. Doughty, General Secretary, Draughtsmen's and Allied Technicians Association.
Mr. L. R. Kealey, National Secretary of the Metal and Engineering Section, Transport and General Workers Union.
Mr. D. Lewis, Executive Council Member. Amalgamated Engineering Union.
Miss M. Veitch, National Woman Officer, National Union of General and Municipal Workers.

Educational Members

Mr. W. E. Buckley, B.Sc.(Eng.), A.M.I. Mech.E., Head of Mechanical Engineering Department, Municipal Technical College and School of Art, Blackburn.
Alderman J. R. Coxon, J.P., Gateshead.
Mr. F. Metcalfe, B.Sc.(Eng.), M.I.Mech.E., Principal, Ipswich Civic College.
Mr. E. H. Otty, M.A., Ed.B., A.M.I.E.E., Principal, David Dale College, Glasgow.
Sir Lionel Russell, C.B.E., M.A., Chief Education Officer, Birmingham.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour why he has decided not to invite the Association of Supervisory Staffs, Executives and Technicians to nominate a representative on the industrial training board for the engineering industry, in view of the fact that the Association organises foremen and others who are not represented by any other union.

Mr. Diamond: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the desirability of securing a cross-section of representatives of the industry on the industrial training board for the engineering industry, if he will reconsider his decision not to invite a representative from the Association of Supervisory Staffs, Executives and Technicians.

Mr. Godber: There are 36 unions in the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, and it would have been quite impossible to appoint a member from each union with an interest in the industry to the engineering board. In appointing the workers' members, I have tried to secure as fair and representative a selection of unions as possible. Unions which are not directly represented

on the board will, I feel sure, have the opportunity of making then-views known through the various committees the hoard will need to set up.

Mr. Swingler: While I appreciate the Minister's difficulties and the impossibility of having all organisations represented on the board, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this is the only organisation which specifically caters for foremen and supervisory staffs, that it is the only union which has an agreement with the engineering employers which caters for those grades, and that it also includes in its ranks very many training instructors? Would he not think that for these three reasons the union has a special claim to be represented and to be heard on the subject of industrial training at the topmost level?

Mr. Godber: I had in mind the very considerations which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I am sure he will realise that practically every union had special reasons for wanting to be included and I had to make a choice. It may be said by some that my choice was not correct, but I tried to arrange the broadest representation that I could. I believe that other unions can play a very useful part through the committee structure, and I hope that this particular union will be able to do just that.

Mr. Diamond: Has the right hon. Gentleman paid sufficient attention to the white-collar workers, who are an increasing proportion of the total number of workers and of union members in this country? Would he not agree, therefore, that to omit such an important branch of the white-collar workers is to be backward-looking instead of forward-looking?

Mr. Godber: I took this point into account, but there were many other organisations with claims from all sorts of conflicting angles. I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the existence of the Central Training Council, which will be particularly charged with looking at this aspect of the problem.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, with the best will in the world, it is impossible to give everybody representation on the board and, despite the criticism, would


he not agree that it is most encouraging that the board is already working so soon after the passing of the Act?

Mr. Godber: As I have indicated, the difficulties about getting agreement were substantial. I think, however that I have the general good will of all sides, and I hope that we shall maintain this and be able to make rapid progress. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment.

Office Facilities, Dundee

Mr. Doig: asked the Minister of Labour if he will provide sub-offices in the larger outlying housing schemes in Dundee, as bus fares cost 1s. 4d. each time an unemployed person registers and some have to register daily.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not consider my right hon. Friend would at present be justified in opening sub-offices in any of the larger outlying housing scheme areas in Dundee. Those persons who sign the unemployed register daily are people whose normal employment is on a casual basis. For that reason all but a few already attend at a central point each day and their subsequent attendance at the employment exchange imposes no additional hardship.

Mr. Doig: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of these people travel well over five miles to sign on at the employment exchange? If he cannot provide a sub-office, would he be prepared to consider making a transport allowance in cases of hardship or in laying down a statutory distance, say, of five miles—because towns are growing all the time—and say that they will be paid a transport allowance if they travel beyond that?

Mr. Whitelaw: There are already specific arrangements concerning distance. Claimants for unemployment benefit are normally required to sign the employment register twice weekly if they live within four miles of the employment exchange. Those who live between four and six miles away are required to sign once a week. Those living beyond six miles are normally dealt with by post. That goes some way towards meeting the point which the hon. Member is making.

Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc.) Act, 1964

Mr. Turner: asked the Minister of Labour when he intends to bring into force the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc.) Act, 1964.

Mr. Godber: I intend shortly to make an Order bringing the Act into force on 1st July.

Mr. Turner: Can my right hon. Friend say what progress he is making in drawing up the regulations?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. I hope to make the commencement Order and the general regulations some time next week. My hon. Friend will not, therefore, have long to wait before this Act comes fully into effect, and I congratulate him on having introduced it.

Easter School Leavers

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the placing of Easter school leavers.

Mr. Godber: Of 157,000 Easter school leavers known to the Youth Employment Service, 2,510 or 1·6 per cent. were still registered for first employment on 11th May. There were fewer Easter leavers than had been anticipated and it seems likely that many boys and girls have decided to stay on at school for a further term. We may therefore expect a large number of leavers at the end of the summer term. I am arranging for a circular to be issued advising employers of this so that they can plan their intake of young people accordingly.

Mr. Smith: Would my right hon. Friend agreed that these figures are very much better than expected? How do they compare with the figures available for 1963?

Mr. Godber: I am glad to note that these figures are encouraging; they are a striking improvement. In the comparable month last year, 9,100 school leavers, representing 6·5 per cent. of the output, were still unemployed.

Mr. Prentice: But is the Minister aware that 1963 is a very bad year for making a comparison? Does he realise that in 1963 there was, on average, 50 per cent. more youth unemployment than in


1962 and about three times more youth unemployment than ten years before? While everybody will welcome the improvement, we want to see an improvement compared with what went on before 1963 and not with what went on in 1963.

Mr. Godber: I accept that. Obviously I shall not be satisfied, and I do not suppose anybody else Will be satisfied, until we can get a complete intake. The fact that only 1·6 per cent. of the total number of school leavers, which was fairly substantial, was still unemployed on 11th May, is something with which both sides of the House will be pleased.

Central Training Council

Mr. Howie: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the members appointed to the Central Training Council have had practical experience as training officers; and how much experience they have had.

Mr. Godber: All the employer members of the Central Training Council have had many years practical experience of training, as of other management, problems, although none has, as far as I am aware, been a training officer as such. Of the other members, one has been education and training officer of the Electricity Council since 1948, and another was for eight years director of education and research in a large company.

Mr. Howie: I thank the Minister for that reply. I wonder whether it would not be better to have on the Central Training Council people who have been employed as training officers and who know the present-day problems.

Mr. Godber: This is a difficult question. I was reinforced in the action which I took by what the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said during the Committee stage of the Bill. He drew attention to this very fact, namely, the need to have, on the one hand, people of sufficiently high standing in the industry and, on the other, of wanting people with technical knowledge. What we can probably do if necessary, is to have a committee under the Council on which the more technical people can be included.

Mr. Turner: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Council will hold its first

meeting and how often it is likely to meet?

Mr. Godber: It will initially meet, I hope, about once a month. It held its first meeting last week. I had the pleasure of attending it and of seeing the enthusiasm with which this has been started.

Mr. Prentice: I am encouraged by what the Minister said just now to make a further suggestion. Has he noticed that recently some training officers formed an organisation which they are calling the British Institute of Training Officers? Will he have regard to this development, and, assuming that it becomes a strong organisation representing training officers throughout industry, will he bear in mind the desirability of having someone from that organisation on the Central Training Council, because, after all, these are the people with responsibility in the firms for organising training and who probably have a prior claim to anyone else to representation on the Council?

Mr. Godber: I do not know that I could give such an undertaking. What the hon. Gentleman has just said runs counter to what he said during the Committee stage of the Bill. I should like to watch the position as we go along. As I said, technical knowledge is very important, but it is also important to have leaders of both sides of industry in order to give the Council its proper standing.

Disabled Persons, North Staffordshire

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour what surveys have been undertaken by his Department of the problem of unemployment among disabled persons in areas like North Staffordshire; and what proposals he has under consideration for stimulating the supply of suitable employment.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is part of the duties of the disablement resettlement officers in North Staffordshire and elsewhere in the country to keep the position of unemployed disabled persons regularly under review and to seek ways of promoting their employment by submitting them to suitable notified vacancies and through special approaches to employers.


In appropriate cases employers are asked to see whether jobs can be modified so as to bring them within the capabilities of the disabled.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in spite of all that is done, and with the best will in the world, by his Department and with the co-operation of the employers, in areas like North Staffordshire there is simply not enough suitable employment for men who are disabled? In view of the fact that special steps are taken for the severely disabled, is it not time that the hon. Gentleman's Department made a new approach to the problem of the partially disabled who require specially suitable employment to be provided in such areas?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree that the position in North Staffordshire is certainly more difficult concerning the partially disabled than in other parts of the country. Despite that, however, it is satisfactory to note that during the last 12 months disablement resettlement officers have placed disabled persons in 1,054 jobs notified to employment exchanges for North Staffordshire.

Building Workers, Bishop Auckland

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour how many building workers are unemployed in the Bishop Auckland travel to work area; and in what categories these unemployed workers are.

Mr. Whitelaw: At 11th May, 1964, 268 workers whose last employment was in the construction industry were registered at employment exchanges in the Bishop Auckland travel to work group. Of these, 28 were skilled craftsmen, 236 were labourers or in other occupations and four were young persons.

Mr. Boyden: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that this is highly unsatisfactory at this time of year in view of the great need for housing, schools, hospital improvements, roads and social facilities in the area? Will he undertake to have consultations with the Ministers responsible for these services to see whether more grants can be made available to mop up this amount of unemployment?

Mr. Whitelaw: There is no doubt that in many parts of the country, and, in

deed, in parts of the North-East, the bottleneck is the shortage of skilled craftsmen which already exists in the construction industry. With the work that is building up in the North-East, I am sure that the skilled craftsmen, who, the hon. Member will have noticed, are very few in number, will soon be placed in employment.

Mr. Boyden: Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that the outlook for these 250 or more people is hopeless, that there are no retraining facilities for them and no possibility of expanding the amount of building work, and that, therefore, they must remain unemployed?

Mr. Whitelaw: Not in the least. I am saying that the work is being expanded and that training facilities are available. The hon. Member must, however, remember that the amount of labour which can be employed in expanding construction work depends upon the number of skilled craftsmen available.

Apprentices

Dr. Bray: asked the Minister of Labour how many and what proportion of boys entering employment became apprentices in 1963 compared with 1962.

Mr. Godber: 101,708 or 33·5 per cent. in 1963, compared with 121,517 or 36·2 per cent. in 1962.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that this reveals an extremely serious state of affairs, showing a drop of over 20,000 boys starting apprenticeships in 1963 as compared with the previous year? Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that this is so serious that emergency action is required rather faster than the setting up and the slow deliberation of training boards? Is he further aware that the biggest drop has taken place in 15-year-old entries and that the 16 and 17-year entries have substantially increased? Does he not, therefore, feel that there would be scope for further increasing the intake of 16 and 17-year-olds during the next year?

Mr. Godber: I agree with the hon. Member that this fall is very unsatisfactory. In fact, however, this was the figure for 1963, when, as the hon. Member will realise, there were a number of employment difficulties all over the country


which, no doubt, affected the percentage. In the first four months of this year, the numbers have improved over the first four months of the previous year, and I hope that this trend will continue. However, I do not agree with the hon. Member about not waiting for the implementation of the Industrial Training Act. I want to press ahead with the Act and get facilities which will embody not only apprentice training, but all forms of training in industry. That is what is needed.

Dr. Bray: Does not the Minister feel that among last year's 15-year-olds are some boys who will permanently find themselves with less opportunity unless emergency action is taken?

Mr. Godber: I hope that there will be opportunities as the training boards get going, but I will be perfectly willing to consider any other ways of helping these young people.

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Labour what proportion of boys entering employment in the years 1961–62 and 1962–63 were apprenticed.

Mr. Godber: From August, 1961, to July, 1962, 37·4 per cent., from August, 1962, to July, 1963, 34·1 per cent.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that progressively with technical progress more and more people will be needed in industry and proportionately fewer unskilled people? Does he not consider that these are very bad figures in an age when technological progress is such that, if we do not move quickly, within another decade we shall be out of the running unless we get more skilled people?

Mr. Godber: I accept that there is a drop between the figures I have given, but the figures for Scotland are substantially higher than those for the United Kingdom as a whole. The whole gist of the Government's policy is at present built around the Industrial Training Act, and I think that it should provide many great opportunities for far higher standards of training in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bence, Question No. 23.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring just to Scotland alone or to the—

Mr. Speaker: I did not see the hon. Gentleman rise. I am sorry about that, but I have now called the next Question.

Tees-side

Dr. Bray: asked the Minister of Labour what special arrangements he makes to find employment for the less easily employed left behind after a wave of extra high local unemployment; and what arrangements he is making on Tees-side.

Mr. Godber: Employment exchanges keep unemployed people on their registers under regular review and make special approaches to employers on behalf of those who find difficulty in getting employment. A new Government training centre is to be opened at Tees-side which will provide further opportunities for those unemployed who are suitable for vocational training.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that in the North-East, the National Assistance Board used to employ special officers for locating men who found it most difficult to get jobs, that these officers no longer work in this capacity and that there are no equivalent officers in the Ministry of Labour? Does not the Minister feel it necessary to set aside special officers to do this work?

Mr. Godber: While I will consider the point that the hon. Member has raised, I have not been aware of any particular difficulty in this sphere. The great thing is to provide more employment opportunities, and that is what we are seeking to do. For example, the hon. Member will be aware of the advance factories which are being located in this area.

Mr. Goodhew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the only Question on the Order Paper about unemployment? Dees this not bring satisfaction to the whole House?

Mr. Godber: I am glad that my hon. Friend has pointed out that fact. Undoubtedly, there is not the same pressure in relation to unemployment. I trust that this means that both sides of the House welcome the wise guidance of the Government in implementing their policies.

Unofficial Trade Disputes

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will request the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress, who are to conduct a joint investigation into unofficial trade disputes, to make the reports available to his Department.

Mr. Godber: I am hoping to arrange to discuss their proposal with representatives of the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Lewis: As this whole idea is an adaptation of my right hon. Friend's original idea to have a "fire brigade", one accepts that it is very good as far as it goes. Can my right hon. Friend tell us, however, when there is a possibility of the first action being taken by the joint committee which is being set up of the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress?

Mr. Godber: I am glad that my proposal stimulated the two sides to this suggestion, and I am anxious to talk to them about it before making any further comment. Within limits, it is a helpful

NUMBERS OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT THE EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OFFICE IN ABERDEEN AT THE UNDERMENTIONED DATES


Industry
11th May, 1964
13th May, 1963


Aberdeen
Aberdeen


Men
Boys
Women
Girls
Total
Men
Boys
Women
Girls
Total


Agriculture and Horticul ture
91
2
7
—
100
100
4
7
—
111


Fishing
102
—
—
—
102
180
—
—
—
180


Bacon curing, Meat and Fish Products
59
3
60
1
123
72
10
62
5
149


Shipbuilding and Ship repairing
49
—
2
—
51
204
—
2
—
206


Spinning and Doubling of Cotton, Flax and Man-made Fibres
19
1
34
—
54
20
—
30
—
50


Bricks, Pottery, Glass, Cement, etc.
32
—
—
—
32
67
2
2
—
71


Timber
55
2
—
—
57
69
2
2
—
73


Construction
237
—
3
—
240
305
3
—
1
309


Sea Transport
81
1
—
—
82
102
1
—
—
103


Distributive Trades
226
5
199
12
442
294
23
193
10
520


Entertainment and Sport
45
—
17
—
62
51
—
9
—
60


Catering, Hotels, etc.
65
—
49
—
114
93
—
55
1
149


Private Domestic Service…
5
—
23
1
29
8
—
37
—
45


Local Government Service
92
—
22
—
114
108
—
15
—
123


Other Industries and Services
539
5
338
10
892
796
14
339
11
1,160


Total, all Industries and Services
1,697
19
754
24
2,494
2,469
59
753
28
3,309

development, but I would still have preferred the proposal which I put forward.

Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour the number, by age, sex and trade, of persons unemployed in Aberdeen during the spring in each of the last five years to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Whitelaw: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: When the Minister gives figures, they are generally stale, whereas it is important in a matter of this sort, affecting trade, industry and commerce, that we should be given figures which are right up to date.

Mr. Whitelaw: I can give the hon. and learned Member the general figures for unemployment in Aberdeen on 11th May, which I think he would consider to be reasonably up-to-date. On that date, there were 2,494 people unemployed in Aberdeen compared with 3,309 a year earlier.

Following is the Table:

Industry
14th May, 1962
13th May, 1961


Aberdeen
Aberdeen


Men
Boys
Women
Girls
Total
Men
Boys
Women
Girls
Total


Agriculture and Horticulture
101
—
6
—
107
97
3
6
—
106


Fishing
119
1
—
—
120
124
—
—
—
124


Bacon curing, Meat and Fish Products
70
2
53
—
125
57
1
36
2
96


Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing
121
—
1
—
122
121
—
1
—
122


Spinning and Doubling of Cotton, Flax and Man-made Fibres
32
—
19
—
51
27
1
15
1
44


Bricks, Pottery, Glass, Cement, etc.
36
—
—
—
36
46
—
—
—
46


Timber
79
4
1
—
84
82
2
—
—
84


Construction
231
3
1
—
235
253
3
5
—
261


Sea Transport
91
13
1
—
105
82
4
—
—
86


Distributive Trades
247
3
159
3
412
246
1
136
—
383


Entertainment and Sport
45
1
5
2
53
65
—
4
—
69


Catering, Hotels, etc.
82
—
60
—
142
71
—
50
—
121


Private Domestic Service
12
—
27
1
40
13
—
32
—
45


Local Government Service
94
—
16
—
110
99
—
10
—
109


Other Industries and Services
670
4
312
9
995
643
2
237
8
890


Total, all Industries and Services
2,030
31
661
15
2,737
2,026
17
532
11
2,586

Industry
16th May, 1960
11th May, 1959


Aberdeen
Aberdeen


Men
Boys
Women
Girls
Total
Men
Boys
Women
Girls
Total


Agriculture and Horticulture
118
2
9
—
129
127
5
8
—
140


Fishing
275
—
—
—
275
135
1
—
—
136


Bacon curing, Meat and Fish Products
71
—
66
3
140
12
—
5
—
17


Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing
132
—
1
—
133
99
1
—
—
100


Spinning and Doubling of Cotton, Flax and Man-made Fibres
28
1
28
—
57
—
—
—
—
—


Bricks, Pottery, Glass, Cement, etc.
56
—
2
1
59
81
1
1
—
83


Timber
91
—
3
—
94
77
6
9
—
92


Construction
293
—
4
—
297
373
3
4
—
380


Sea Transport
95
3
2
—
100
139
4
—
—
143


Distributive Trades
286
2
194
3
485
337
14
251
4
606


Entertainment and Sport
49
—
4
1
54
52
—
9
—
61


Catering, Hotels, etc.
85
—
70
1
156
93
—
120
1
214


Private Domestic Service
14
—
33
1
48
17
.—
54
—
71


Local Government Service
92
—
14
—
106
107
1
11
1
120


Other Industries and Services
696
2
247
4
949
1,013
15
482
8
1,518


Total, all Industries and Services
2,381
10
677
14
3,082
2,662
51
954
14
3,681

Linoleum Industry, Kirkcaldy

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Minister of Labour how many apprentices will become redundant when Barry's linoleum factories in Kirkcaldy are closed this month.

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that one apprentice electrician will become redundant.

Mr. Gourlay: While the number may indeed be small, does the Minister realise that this loss of one apprentice electrician is a quite considerable loss to this country and even more of a tragic loss to the individual concerned who is unable to find a place? This is the second occasion this firm has closed several factories, and in fact this time will be the final one. On the last occasion this apprentice found it most difficult to find suitable alternative employment? What steps does the hon. Gentleman propose to take to ensure that on this occasion he is found a suitable place?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the hon. Member on his first point, namely, that the number could scarcely be smaller, but at the same time I agree with him that even if the figure is only one it is important to the person concerned and also for everyone else. Efforts are being made to find an opening for this boy with another local firm so that his apprenticeship can continue. Our local officers are in close touch with Barry's and will do all they can to assist.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Minister of Labour what reduction there has been in the number of persons employed in the linoleum industry in Kirkcaldy since January 1963 to the latest available date; and what increase there has been in the number of people in this industry in Staines in this period.

Mr. Whitelaw: I regret that this information is confidential.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a considerable reduction in the numbers of people employed in the linoleum industry since January, 1963, and that the closure of factories in Kirkcaldy has necessitated an expansion in Staines, and there must be at Staines, if not an increase in the numbers employed, certainly a lower rate of reduction than one would have expected?

Is not this a complete reversal of Government policy to encourage, guide and stimulate industry in Scotland? What does he propose to do to reverse the trend? What steps has he taken to provide employment for the 200 people to be declared redundant in Kirkcaldy?

Mr. Whitelaw: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, it is certainly unfortunate that these jobs should be lost in Kirkcaldy, particularly since, as the hon. Gentleman rightly states, they have been gained in Staines. However, the decision to make the move was taken in the light of the firm's commercial judgment. There was no power to stand in its way as the firm was moving to existing premises and, therefore, no industrial development certificate was necessary. With regard to employment generally in the area and to the provision of jobs for the people who are declared redundant, the hon. Gentlemen is well aware of all the measures being taken—and being successfully taken—to stimulate employment in this area.

Mr. Prentice: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the particular figures are confidential?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir; because in this case it would involve disclosing information which would reveal directly the numbers employed in individual firms, and it is not the practice to do so.

Mr. Gourlay: As the hon. Gentleman is shy about the detailed figures, could he give us any indication by way of percentage increase or decrease?

Mr. Whitelaw: Not without notice, but I am quite prepared to do so if the hon. Gentleman asks me.

Hooliganism

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Labour whether, to counteract the current hooliganism, he will consider legislation to continue or restore National Service.

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Minister of Labour if he will introduce legislation to revive the form of direction which was used under the National Service Act to send boys to work in the mines, and which could be used for other forms of


national non-military service, for those youths arrested at seaside and other resorts who are causing inconvenience to other holidaymakers and residents, as an alternative to sentencing them to terms of imprisonment or fines.

Mr. Godber: No. Sir.

Sir T. Moore: While rather expecting that reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider an alternative suggestion, such as establishing a sort of training unit staffed by Regular officers, with a good sergeant-major and N.C.O.s, so that these young people can be sent to that unit instead of to prison so that they may possibly learn some much needed discipline?

Mr. Godber: I am not quite clear whether my hon. Friend means a unit of the Armed Forces. If that is his thought, I must say to him that I could not hold out any hopes of that kind. I would have thought that the statement which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made on this whole question last week sums up the Government's attitude to this matter.

Sir W. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend not think it is a great pity that a lot of these young people who are not inherently bad should have to go to prison and possibly waste their time there? Could not something be found for them to do? For instance, in my constituency we have self-help house building associations, which badly need support. Has my right hon. Friend thought of asking our labour attachés in our embassies abroad to find out what is being done about this problem in other countries, because it is an international problem?

Mr. Godber: As to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I will consider that, but I do not think I should take this matter further. As I have said, my right hon. Friend gave great thought to the statement he made last week, and that does really sum up the Government's attitude to this whole matter. But I would certainly hold out no hopes of doing anything in relation to the Armed Forces, which provide an honourable career, and should continue to do so.

Mr. Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the scare stories used by Conservative speakers in recent

by-elections has been that Labour policy might involve the reintroduction of conscription? Will he confirm that the only suggestion that he has received to that effect has come on the Floor of the House from his own side of the House?

Mr. Godber: I am very interested in this statement, but I am a little puzzled why it was not made last week, when the invitation was given. Presumably, the hon. Member has been now briefed. What I would say to him is that if, in fact, it is not the policy of the party opposite to introduce conscription, perhaps he will explain how it proposes to increase our conventional Forces in the way it has said.

Mr. Speaker: But not on this Question.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, instead of giving a short, simple, negative reply to hon. Members who have asked these Questions, he ought to have declared it to be a shocking suggestion—that the Forces of this country should be created out of alleged hooligans? Does not he regard that as a discreditable suggestion? Would he not make it perfectly clear that it is the policy of the Government to reject any proposal either for military conscription or for any other form of conscription?

Mr. Godber: I can only assume that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear my reply. I said, and said quite categorically, that I thought that service in the Armed Forces was an honourable profession. Having been Secretary of State for War until quite recently, I feel that very strongly.

Decorwall Limited (Dispute)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement about the Decorwall trade dispute.

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Minister of Labour what further steps his Department have taken to resolve the dispute now existing; between the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and Decorwall Ltd.

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a further effort to intervene in the dispute now existing between Decorwall and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

Mr. Crossman: asked the Minister of Labour what further communication he has received from Wallpaper Manufacturers Limited, with regard to the Decorwall dispute.

Mr. Whitelaw: As my right hon. Friend and I have indicated in earlier replies, the dispute at this firm arises from the dismissal of the manager of a shop. I understand that the firm gave their reasons in writing to the employee concerned at the time of dismissal. The firm subsequently dismissed a number of employees who went on strike following the manager's dismissal. The union concerned take the view that the reason for these dismissals was that the employees concerned were trade union members. The firm have given an assurance that this is not so. In discussions with officers of the Ministry, the firm have said that they are not prepared to reconsider the dismissals nor to meet union representatives. A further approach has however been made to the firm, who, I hope, will agree to an early meeting with officers of the Ministry. In reply to a supplementary question from the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) on 11th May, I referred to the good relations between this firm and its trade union. I wish to make it clear that I was referring to the manufacturing side of the firm's activities, which is covered by a Joint Industrial Council.

Mr. Edelman: Is the Minister aware that, while his endeavours are welcome in this matter, it is appropriate that he should now point out that this matter is of considerable principle, since Wallpaper Manufacturers Limited is a monopoly company and since Decorwall has consistently refused to meet the trade union in this matter and, in the meantime, it has put forward a statement, which was supported by the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking), to whom I gave notice that I intended to mention him, that this man was sacked not, as was the case, for wanting to join a trade union, but for a misdemeanour? In view of this unfounded charge, will not the Minister take the opportunity, first, to refute it and, secondly, to insist that Wallpaper Manufacturers should at an early date take the opportunity of confronting the manager who has been so grossly abused and give him an opportunity

of stating his case, together with his trade union associates?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have indicated in my reply that we are making a further approach to the firm and that I hope that it will agree to an early meeting with the officers of our Ministry. I think that in these circumstances it would be wise for me to make no further comment, one way or the other, so far as the matters of dispute are concerned.

Mr. Loughlin: May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the statement he has made this afternoon and indicate that I do not wish to make any remarks which are likely to create any difficulties for his Department? But will the Parliamentary Secretary make quite clear to this firm that this union has a first-class record on strikes and that this company must not assume that reasonableness is weakness, and that we intend to take every possible action to defend the rights of this union to be recognised as the appropriate trade union in cases of this kind?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his realisation that it is important not to say much at this stage of the proceedings. As to the rest of what he said, all I would say to him is that his words will be read very carefully by all concerned.

Mr. Crossman: While appreciating the difficulties for his Department, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he understands that this firm's attitude, in refusing week after week to meet the union, and in insultingly refusing to meet the Minister's own officials, has created great bitterness in Coventry? Will he make it quite clear first of all that the procedure by the firm is not one we could possibly approve of?

Mr. Whitelaw: All I would say in answer to the hon. Member is that it is true that the firm did meet our officers previously and did discuss the matter with them. As I said in my original statement, it did meet our officers before; we have asked it to meet us again, and I should like to wait and see what reply it will give on this occasion.

Mr. K. Lewis: While not wanting to prejudge any meeting which may take


place between the Minister and the firm, may I ask my hon. Friend if he will confirm that this man can go to law, if he so wishes, to get whatever restitution he thinks is possible?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend asked a practical question, and the answer, as the House will very well know, is that, of course, this man has his legal rights. All I am saying at this stage is that we are making an approach to the firm again. I think that this is the best way of proceeding at this stage.

Industrial Training, Scotland

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Labour how many youths are undertaking industrial training in Scotland.

Mr. Godber: I regret that this information is not available, but in 1963, 13,906 boys or 42·6 per cent. of all boys entering employment in Scotland took apprenticeships or other jobs with training.

Mr. Bence: As the need.; of Scotland are far greater than the needs of the remainder of the United Kingdom, are these figures not quite unsatisfactory if we expect in the next decade to attract a considerable increase in newer industries into Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to boost the training of young people in Scotland to fit into the new era?

Mr. Godber: I indicated in reply to the previous Question that it is through the Industrial Training Act that there will be a new impetus. I believe that it will have a tremendous impact. In relation to the young people in Scotland leaving school, it is significant that of those leaving at Easter this year only a very small proportion, about 2·3 pet cent., have not yet found employment.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will my right hon. Friend ask the industrial training boards to look at the length of apprenticeships? It is a very strong discouragement for our young people to spend five years in craft apprenticeship training when other nations find it possible to do it much more quickly.

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend raises a very important point. I am sure

that as the industrial training boards get under way the whole question of apprentice training must be looked at afresh. I believe that we need to concentrate more on training as such within apprenticeships, for the form of training is what matters. I believe that the period will then fall into place.

Dr. Bray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if we take all forms of training into account, the proportion entering employment which offers some kind of training in Scotland and the North-East is far lower than in the rest of the country? Is not some machinery required additional to that envisaged under the Industrial Training Act to look after the immediate local and regional problem in respect of boys now entering employment?

Mr. Godber: It was with this in view that we expanded the Government training centres, which are directed very considerably towards Scotland and the North-East. This is where the largest part of the expansion has taken place. This is the interim measure that we have taken. In the meantime, the important thing is to press ahead with the Industrial Training Act.

Rehabilitation Centre, Egham

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to reduce the waiting period of six months for applicants with epilepsy seeking admission to the residential rehabilitation centre at Egham, Surrey.

Mr. Godber: I am considering whether more residential accommodation is necessary at the Egham Unit, and the availability in other parts of the country of lodgings suitable for epileptics is being investigated with a view to other units taking some of those waiting for admission.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this operates very hardly in the case of people who are waiting? May I send him details of one of my constituents who has been told that he has to wait for six months? He is an epileptic case and is very anxious to be rehabilitated, and six months is rather too long to wait.

Mr. Godber: I have a great deal of sympathy in this matter, but these


epileptic cases are very difficult. This is the only residential centre that we have for them, and we sometimes get waiting lists. I should be glad to look into any case sent to me to see whether I can help.

Index of Retail Prices

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Labour if he will detail the reasons why the Index of Retail Prices in the Services group show an increase of 6·7 per cent. from January 1962; and what has been the increase since October 1951.

Mr. Godber: The rise in the index for the Services group of the Index of Retail Prices between January, 1962, and April, 1964, was due to higher charges for almost all the services included in the group. The index for the Services group rose by about 60 per cent. between October, 1951, and April, 1964.

Mr. Willis: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these figures, taken with figures for other classes of goods in the Index of Retail Prices, illustrate the utter nonsense talked by the Government about stabilising the cost of living over the past two years? Will he draw these figures to the attention of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance so that the hardships falling upon the unemployed, the sick and the old-age pensioners might be relieved?

Mr. Godber: In this group of the index, as the hon. Gentleman will perhaps know, the largest item of the weighting is entertainment other than television and radio. That is the item which has gone up most. We must relate this to the increases in wage rates and earnings. Whereas the all-items index has risen 48·5 per cent. between October, 1951, and April, 1964, wage rates have risen 78 per cent. Average earnings have risen 98 per cent. between October, 1951, and October, 1963. That is what counts, and that is why our people are better off than they were.

Mr. Webster: What percentage of these services are administered by nationalised industries?

Mr. Godber: I could not give that without notice.

Vacancies

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Minister of Labour if he will seek powers to encourage employers to register all vacancies in their establishments with the local offices of his Department.

Mr. Godber: The policy of the Government is to encourage employers to notify their vacancies to the employment exchanges. I do not consider that any additional powers are necessary.

Mr. Carmichael: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many industrial concerns do not notify their vacancies and rely on an unofficial type of grapevine, which means ten men going after every rumour of a vacancy? This leads to frustration and demoralisation among those unemployed for a long time. Will he consider whether, at least in the development districts, greater powers should not be taken to route all vacancies through the employment exchanges?

Mr. Godber: I think that we should try this through persuasion. My local exchange managers have close contact with firms in their areas and, in general, have very satisfactory arrangements for getting vacancies known and dealt with. I would be reluctant to do anything of a compulsory nature here.

Mr. Loughlin: Would not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in certain industries there are agencies which abuse their position and to which employees are still paying fees for securing jobs? Is not this a matter which should be dealt with?

Mr. Godber: Those employees should know—there are plenty of opportunities to do so—that facilities in the Ministry are always available and that we will gladly seek to place them if they will come to our offices.

Scotland and England

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Labour what was the increase in the number of male employees in the Eastern and Southern Region and in Scotland, respectively, over the period from 1959 to the latest available date.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Minister of Labour what was the increase in the number of female employees in the Eastern and Southern Region and in Scotland, respectively, since 1959.

Mr. Godber: Between 1959 and 1963 the estimated number of male employees increased by 120,000 in Eastern and Southern Region and decreased by 6,000 in Scotland. Over the same period the estimated number of female employees increased by 116,000 in the Eastern and Southern Region and by 35,000 in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: Do not these shocking figures show the failure of the Government to achieve growth in Scotland? Will he complete the picture by giving the figures for unfilled vacancies in the two areas?

Mr. Godber: I can give those additional figures if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question. The figures I have just given brought the picture up to 1963. He will be as glad as I am at the substantial improvement in the situation in Scotland in recent months. Unemployment fell by 7,000 between April and May and is down by nearly 25,000 compared with a year ago.

Mr. Hannan: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not be content merely with the surface picture every time he comes to that Box? The position in Scotland is deteriorating. While we are glad to learn that the number of jobs has increased for women, do not these figures emphasise the disparity between the number of jobs available in Scotland and the number available in the South-East? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of providing industrial training and further education facilities for young women in Scotland as well as for men?

Mr. Godber: Yes. The point I was making was that since these figures were produced the position has considerably improved. Obviously, we all want it to improve still more, and the Government are doing more through the provision of advance factories. The Government's programme for Scotland is beginning to take effect, as is borne out by the figures for recent months.

Mr. Ross: May we have an assurance that the reduction of unemployment in

Scotland is due to people formerly unemployed being able to find work in Scotland?

Mr. Godber: Obviously a very large number did so. I cannot, however, give the exact figure. But the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the importance of the Linwood factory, and I hope that he will convey to his right hon. and hon. Friends the need to encourage these workers by reassuring them about the developments of the last few days.

Mr. Small: asked the Minister of Labour what was the ratio of wholly-unemployed boys to notified unfilled vacancies in the Eastern and Southern Region, the Midlands, and in Scotland, respectively, at the latest available date.

Mr. Bennett: asked the Minister of Labour what was the ratio of wholly-unemployed girls to notified unfilled vacancies for girls in the Eastern and Southern Region, the Midlands and in Scotland, respectively, at the latest available date.

Mr. Whitelaw: At mid-May for every 100 unemployed boys there were 799 unfilled vacancies in Eastern and Southern Region, 1,359 in the Midlands and 60 in Scotland. For every 100 unemployed girls there were 1,118 unfilled vacancies in Eastern and Southern Region, 1,913 in the Midlands and 199 in Scotland.

Mr. Small: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that these figures show a terrible disparity between opportunities for young people in Scotland as compared with the South-East. Is it not a humiliating experience for young people who have done their best to obtain qualifications to fail to find jobs to match their skills?

Mr. Whitelaw: Out of the 13,200 Easter school leavers in Scotland, only 299 were still registered as unemployed on 11th May. That certainly is not a position which has deteriorated from a year ago.

Mr. Lawson: How many of these youngsters are leaving Scotland? Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that his country—or what he sometimes claims to be his country—is being regularly drained of its manhood?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman is making a lot of wild statements not substantiated by the facts.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour what were the average weekly earnings of men over 21 years of age in the Eastern and Southern Region, the Midlands, and in Scotland, respectively, on the latest available date for which estimates were made.

Mr. Godber: In October 1963, the latest date for which figures are available, average weekly earnings of men manual workers 21 years and over in all industries covered by the Ministry's half-yearly inquiries were as follows:

Eastern and Southern Region
…
343s.
4d.


Midlands Region
…
348s.
7d.


Scotland
…
309s.
l0d.

These figures, together with those for other regions, were published in the March 1964 issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

Mr. Lawson: Do not these figures bring out the fact that private enterprise, of which the Government so regularly boast, is the root cause of the difficulties existing in Scotland? Will the hon. Member see to it that he abandons the fallacies based on that boast?

Mr. Godber: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman feels that Scotland cannot compete with England. That is not what most Scottish people say. These figures show the amount of earnings. The number of hours worked on average, is somewhat less in Scotland. There have also been lower costs for those not living in London and the South-East.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it not the case that many costs, such as rents, are lower in Scotland than in the South-East? Is it not also true that many union agreements made with employer associations allow for lower earnings in Scotland as compared with other parts of the country?

Mr. Godber: There are a number of factors. The fact remains that some people seem to combine the advantages of having a Scottish home with work in England.

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Labour what was the increase in the number of male employees of 18 years and under in the Eastern and Southern Region

and in Scotland, respectively, over the period from 1959.

Mr. Godber: Separate figures are only available for boys under 18. Between mid-1959 and mid-1963, the number of boys under 18 in employment increased by 21,700 in the Eastern and Southern Region and 7,000 in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: Does not this illustrate once again the disparity between the opportunities in the south-east of England and those in the south-east of Scotland? Will the Government remember that in Scotland we need 40,000 new jobs a year if we are to stop the process which we have been discussing? When will the Government reach this figure?

Mr. Godber: I have indicated in reply to previous Questions that the Government have been and are doing a considerable amount through the variety of measures announced in the White Paper which was issued last autumn. It was in the light of that that I asked for the support of hon. Members opposite regarding the expansion which should develop at the Lin-wood factory, about which there has been a good deal of comment over the weekend.

ROOTES GROUP

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the extent to which the acquisition of shares in the Rootes Group by Chryslers will transfer control of policy of the Rootes Group out of the United Kingdom.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I understand that this deal will not involve transfer out of the United Kingdom of control of policy of the Group.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Chancellor aware that, while everyone welcomes overseas investment in this country, we want to be quite clear that that investment is to be exercised in the interests of the British motor car industry and not the American motor car industry? [Interruption.] I repeat, not the American motor car industry. Hon. Members opposite should be just as concerned as we are about that.
As the shares of Rootes seem to be held in a small family trust, part of


which at least is based in Nassau, what precautions is the Chancellor taking to ensure (hat there can be no dispersal of this family trust which would transfer the control of this company into hands outside the United Kingdom? Will he ask the President of the Board of Trade, who seems to have rushed into a quick statement on this matter, whether he will appoint an inspector to investigate the beneficial shareholdings of this company so as to make certain that the 30 per cent. acquisition by Chryslers does not give them effective control?
As the President of the Board of Trade has stated that he wishes all questions of take-overs and mergers to be referred to him for advice and guidance before they take place, even in advance of any legislation, what is the Government's policy on the question of the control of the motor car industry by overseas capital? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of this latest purchase of shares, more than 50 per cent. of the cars which will be manufactured in this country will be to some extent, either wholly or partly, within American control?
As the motor car industry has been one of the most sensitive spots in the stop-go economy of the last 12 years, what is the policy of the Government to ensure that the future of the motor car industry in this country is dictated by our national interest and not by the interests of those overseas?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may welcome foreign investment, but they have a very strange way of showing it. The question of control does not arise. As I said, there will not be a transfer of control out of the United Kingdom as a result of this deal.

Mr. G. Brown: At any time?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, because the Chrysler Corporation would not be able to increase its holding without Treasury sanction.
I understand that the Rootes family, with its associates, will continue to hold 50 per cent. of the voting shares.
In general, this arrangement will bring new capital to this country, and access to American "know-how" and research, and also greatly increase export facilities

—and a very good thing for the motor car industry, too.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a little illogical for the Opposition to mistrust this type of American investment in Britain whereas they are prepared to trust the United States with the entire nuclear defence of this country?

Mr. Maudling: I would not agree that it is a little illogical. I think that it is typically silly.

Mr. Grimond: As there has been some suggestion that British industry is falling under German control, can the Chancellor tell us whether there is any truth in this and, if so, on what scale this movement is taking place? Secondly, is it not a fact that nothing could be more disastrous for this country than the growth of economic nationalism, that the scale of modern business in these days means that it will cross national frontiers, and that this growth of economic nationalism is one of the most serious dangers threatening the West?

Mr. Maudling: I agree very much with the point of the right hon. Gentleman's second question. On the first, I see no sign of British industry falling under the domination of any other country. Our overseas investments are on a greater scale than foreign investments here.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the total of British investment overseas is roughly three times that of the equivalent foreign investment here? In these circumstances, is he not rather pleased that foreign opinion is not nearly so chauvinistic or parochial as that of right hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Maudling: I would rather see Chrysler investing money here rather than with our Continental competitors.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not the case that the trustees of the Rootes family—the General Trust of Nassau—are precluded by law from giving guarantees for the future, so that the majority shareholding in Rootes may at some time in the future come under the control of Chrysler's? Quite apart from the financial manipulations with which we are concerned today, is it not the case that in Chrysler's we have a firm with an unstable record at a time of recession, and that, if it were


administering this important section of the British motor industry, if it had to choose between sacking men in Detroit or men in Coventry or Linwood, it would certainly act to the disadvantage of this country?

Mr. Maudling: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that the Bahamas are within the United Kingdom exchange control. The second question is highly hypothetical, particularly because the firm is not administering, and will not administer. the Rootes Company.

Mr. Webster: Does not the Opposition's chauvinistic and nationalistic attitude of resistance and resentment to every American investment in our development districts show what would happen if the country made the mistake of accepting the invitation, "Let's go with Labour"?

Mr. Speaker: These questions, arising out of a statement are getting out of order. There is no Ministerial responsibility for pronouncements of that kind.

Mr. H. Wilson: Do not the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend distinguish between those forms of foreign investment in this country which are and have always been welcomed, which introduce "know-how" which we do not possess, or which lead to the creation of new industries or new factories and employment for our people on the one hand, and, on the other, those which involve a partial or complete take-over of existing British firms which are already very well run? Does not the right hon. Gentleman draw that distinction?
Does he not recall that not only during his period at the Board of Trade, but also during mine, we brought in many American firms to create new industries and to bring into this country "know-how" which we did not have? This being so, how does the right hon. Gentleman square this proposal, on which we have not yet been given very full information, with the general argument about "know-how" investment?
When the right hon. Gentleman said that the argument for this deal was that it brought much needed capital into this country—I think that the amount involved is £12 million or so—does he not

feel, after all we have heard about the City of London, that we could have found the capital in this country—or are we too busy lending money to Japan and other countries, as at present?

Mr. Maudling: The first question put by the right hon. Gentleman was deliberately—perhaps not deliberately—but it was clouded by the word "partial". Anyone who takes one share in the company would have what I suppose might be called "partial control". The point is that we have to distinguish—and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—in every case—as we do—between the national interest involved in a foreign investment in this country. I look at this problem from the point of view of the encouragement of foreign investment, not only because of the inflow of capital to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but also because of the inflow of "know-how" and research and the inflow of experience of a kind which we do not have, and the widening of opportunities for export which come from an investment of this kind.

Sir A. V. Harvey: When considering this matter will my right hon. Friend take into account that only a few weeks ago Mr. Clore's group invested £5 million in the United States and got control of Consolidated Laundries, the largest company of its kind?—[HON MEMBERS: "Laundries?"] Yes; that was a foreign investment. If there are to be overseas investments of that kind from this country should not we welcome them here with the safeguards which he has outlined?

Mr. Maudling: We must remember that, as a country, we have made vast investments throughout the world—and are continuing to do so—which are of great benefit to ourselves and to the countries in whom we invest. It would be absolute folly to start opposing the international flow of capital.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Chancellor realise that we are facing a period of intense competition in the motor car industry from abroad? May I ask what steps have been taken by the Government to safeguard the position of the British motor car industry, in which an increasingly large amount of American capital is being invested, which, as was said


by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), may operate to the detriment of our own people in this country and in favour of thte American motor car industry?
We all accept what the Chancellor says about the need for overseas investment. What steps is he taking to protect the national interest of a vulnerable industry which is not like Consolidated Laundries in America?

Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Member is concerned, for example, with Continental competition, would he prefer to see the resources of Chrysler's put behind a German, or French or Italian firm—

Mr. Callaghan: Answer the question.

Mr. Maudling: —because I certainly would not?
In answer to the remaining part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I would say that I agree with the General Secretary of the Scottish T.U.C., who said, "I suggest that we should look at this deal happily and without foreboding"

Mr. Crossman: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to answer a question which, I think, is seriously worrying my constituents who work at Rootes? Is he satisfied that the kind of deal which has started—we do not think that this is the end; this seems to us the first stage—will not end in putting our firm in the same position as Simca? Is he satisfied with the Simca position?
Secondly, is he satisfied that we shall be able to retain our exports franchise in the way that many firms have not been able to do after similar bids?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that it is an important question. I think that the experience of Ford and Vauxhall in the export market show how well American companies export from this country.
Regarding future changes, the Chrysler Company would not try to extend its holding in Rootes without Treasury permission.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much to do; we must keep moving.

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL (SOUTH AFRICAN TRIAL)

Mr. D. Foot: Mr. D. Foot (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions Her Majesty's Government have sent or intend sending to the United Kingdom representative on the Security Council regarding the discussion which is to take place in the Council today with reference to the trial in South Africa of Nelson Mandela and others.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): It is not usual to disclose our instructions to the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations. In any event, no terms of any resolution on this question are known to us.
As to any discussion which may take place on the Rivonia trial, judgment has not yet been given and it would not be appropriate to anticipate it.

Mr. Foot: I appreciate the force of the hon. Gentleman's last sentence. May I ask him whether he is aware that this matter is likely to be discussed at the Security Council either today or during the present week? Is he further aware that in many parts of the world there is great concern about this trial, more particularly in view of the fact that many of the witnesses for the prosecution have been detained and questioned for up to 90 days under the General Law Amendment Act? If it should be necessary, at the end of this trial, to ask for clemency—if the United Nations should take action in that respect—will such action have the support of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, it is possible that this trial may be discussed in the general debate on apartheid which has started, or will be starting, in the Security Council today. As I told the House, we do not think that it would be appropriate to take any action in this matter while the trial is still on. The verdict will not be given until 11th June.
As to the last part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question, I cannot, of course, anticipate what action Her Majesty's Government may think it appropriate to take after the verdict in this trial is announced.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that uneasiness in this respect is shared by people in all quarters throughout the country?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, I am aware of that. In fact, the South African Government are also aware of the strength of public feeling in this country.

Mr. Grimond: May we take it that our representative at the United Nations has also been made aware of the widespread anxiety about this matter? Do I understand that the Government are prepared to consider immediate action should that become necessary after the trial?

Mr. Thomas: I cannot, of course, anticipate what Her Majesty's Government would do in an eventuality which has not yet arisen.

Mr. Kershaw: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it would be most unfair and undesirable if contentious statements about this matter were made in public at present, before judgment is given? Is not it a fact that even after judging there is an opportunity for appeal?

Mr. Thomas: I think that it is correct that there is a right of appeal after the verdict has been given.
As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I think that it would be inappropriate.

Mr. Brockway: Is not it the case that the Government are already committed in this matter by the vote which they gave in the General Assembly of the United Nations for the release of the prisoners in South Africa charged with offences against apartheid and for the cessation of this trial?

Mr. Thomas: I agree that we did vote in support of that resolution. After we had voted I gave an explanation of our vote to the General Assembly.

TYPHOID OUTBREAK, ABERDEEN

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): With permission, I should like to make a further statement to the House on the outbreak of typhoid in Aberdeen.
This afternoon there are 412 patients in hospital in Aberdeen, only 10 more

than yesterday; 345 of these are confirmed cases of typhoid fever and 67 supected cases under investigation. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the pattern of illness has been generally mild.
It appears from investigation into the histories of these patients that the infection of the vast majority can be traced directly to a connection with the supermarket in Aberdeen where the primary source of infection probably occurred—which had been open for eight months instead of eight weeks as I erroneously said last Tuesday. This means that there has been relatively little spread as yet from those whose infection was contracted there.
Elsewhere in the country 31 patients—29 in Scotland and two in England and Wales—are in hospital with typhoid fever contracted in Aberdeen and 40 are under investigation. It is, perhaps, inevitable that some cases will occur from close contact with the disease, but although it cannot be stated certainly that there will be no wide spread the measures taken by the public authorities and the advice given to the public should contain and minimise the threat.
The management of the large food factory at Dyce, which has been closed voluntarily for a fortnight, took this action after consultation with the County Medical Officer of Health and Dr. MacQueen as a precautionary measure because all its workers were resident in Aberdeen.
Although people living in Aberdeen are still advised not to move out of the city at present and people from elsewhere should only travel to Aberdeen on essential business, medical advice is that there is no need for a more rigid restriction in movement at present.
I have made available a senior medical officer from my Department to reinforce Dr. MacQueen's staff. Additional public health staff are immediately available from the other Scottish cities, but their services have not as yet been needed.
My Chief Medical Officer, in consultation with the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, has publicly advised that general inoculation against the enteric group of fevers is unwise and has stressed that a high standard of


general hygiene is the best preventive of spread.
Although, in view of the action that has been taken, it is not thought that any wide spread of the epidemic is likely, medical officers of health in other parts of the country have been reminded of the importance of keeping a watch on the situation in their areas.
I have already announced that the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry will be Sir David Milne, formerly Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office. The other members will be:
Professor A. B. Semple, Professor of Public Health in Liverpool University; Medical Officer of Health and Port Medical Officer, City of Liverpool.
Dr. J. W. Howie, Director of the Public Health Laboratory Service in England and Wales.
Mr. A. M. Borthwick, Chairman of Thos. Borthwick & Sons Ltd., meat importers and distributors, London.
Mrs. Gabrielle Pyke, J.P., Chairman of the National Federation of Women's Institutes of England Wales.
My right hon. Friends and I are grateful to them for their readiness to serve on the Committee.
The terms of reference of the inquiry are:
To investigate the cause of the primary infection in the recent outbreak of typhoid fever in Aberdeen and the means by which it was disseminated, and to report.
As I said last week, the first priority is to contain the present epidemic, and the Committee will not wish to add to the burden of work at present falling on the medical officer of health and his staff. Subject to this, however, they will get down to work as soon as possible.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although there has been this widespread outbreak and the danger of it spreading, we welcome the fact that it is relatively mild in its nature? That, at least, is reassuring.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some assurance about the inquiry? We are glad that it has been set up, but it is rather disappointing that nothing is to happen.
The right hon. Gentleman says that adidtional staff are now available, and can be called on by the medical officer of health. Would not it be wise for that to be done, and to get down right away to the business of tracking down the source and learning some lessons of how it was disseminated? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that all the steps which should have been taken in relation to corned beef have been taken, particularly the 1951 supplies?
My last question relates to hard-pressed staff and what is being done by the Medical Officer of Health of Aberdeen and his staff. A pamphlet is being issued to every householder in Aberdeen. Was this produced by Aberdeen itself, or was it produced by the Scottish Health Department?

Mr. Noble: I think that it would be impossible to treat the matter as simply as the hon. Gentleman has by bringing in extra staff to relieve Dr. MacQueen and the people who have been doing the work so that they can give their whole time to the inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is to investigate the cause of the infection. A great deal of the work which the Committee will be studying is being produced day by day in Aberdeen from the medical records of the people concerned. I hope that no time will be wasted in getting an answer to the inquiry. but I do not believe that it could be done just by shifting staff at this moment.
Everything that could be done about the corned beef has been done, and the supplies from the two establishments to which I referred in the House last week are being called in at the moment. As I told the House, as far as I know there is no question of the 1951 supplies of Government stocks being involved in the outbreak. The Committee of Inquiry will clearly be looking at this as one of its problems.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last supplementary question, the pamphlet was produced in Aberdeen.

Mr. K. Robinson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Government first became aware that there were stocks of corned beef in this country which had not been treated with chlorinated water during the cooling process? When this information was conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman and to his right hon.


Friend the Minister of Health, what steps did they take, or, if they did not take any, did they consider this an acceptable risk?

Mr. Noble: As I think I said in the House last week, all the stocks up to 1955 in the country, whether Government or any other, were cooled with unchlorinated untreated water, so this was known for a considerable time.
Since the outbreaks at Bedford and Harlow last year, the decision from the medical officers investigating these outbreaks pointed very clearly to the possibility of corned beef being the cause. The supplies from the establishments which had produced that corned beef were called in. Immediately following that, an official from the Department of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food went to South America and investigated a whole series of establishments. In the middle of March he informed the Government by telegram that one establishment was producing corned beef and was not using chlorinated water.
The stocks from that supply were stopped on the high seas and were not accepted into this country, or were accepted only in bond. Large quantities of corned beef from that factory had been circulating through the country for perhaps eight or nine months beforehand. They were not withdrawn.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has made a terrible mistake in appointing as chairman of this inquiry an ex-civil servant, particularly one connected with his Department, instead of appointing a High Court judge, with judicial qualities, accustomed to examining and cross-examining witnesses, including expert witnesses? Will the right hon. Gentleman immediately rectify that mistake by appointing a High Court judge and also by widening the scope of the inquiry?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further realise that there are far too many probabilities and possibilities in his statement? What the House and the country want is a clear and definite report by a thoroughly competent, experienced and qualified inquiry. Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to that end?

Mr. Noble: What the hon. and learned Gentleman wants from his inquiry is most

likely to be achieved by the appointment of Sir David Milne, who is regarded by a great many Members of the House, and by the public outside who have had anything to do with him, as extremely competent and quite impartial. I do not regard the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman that because, five years ago, Sir David Milne was head of the Scottish Office, that makes him inappropriate to carry out this investigation. I think that it increases the likelihood of getting the right answer, because he understands conditions in Scotland as a whole.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the composition of this Committee will give the utmost satisfaction to the people of Scotland, particularly the appointment of Sir David Milne, a man of vast experience and much common sense?

Mr. G. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who know Sir David Milne are sure that he will do his job? The only worry we have is that he will to some extent be inquiring into the Department of which, until recently, he was the head?
The Minister said today that he and his right hon. Friend were advised months ago—presumably in time to avoid this outbreak—to withdraw these supplies of corned beef. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not do so. Will he now tell us why he did not, and whether the Committee of Inquiry is being asked to inquire into why that was not done?

Mr. Noble: The position is that, as I have said, the House knows that all corned beef up to 1955 was from plants and establishments using unchlorinated water. The plant to which I have referred was at fault in this respect. It had had a chlorinating plant, but it had broken down and had not been repaired. On the other hand, in the case to which I referred, in Harlow and Bedford last year, there was an extra problem because the water supplying the cooling plant to that establishment—a different one—was coming from an area in which there was a town which had had a serious typhoid epidemic.
In this case there was no information of any typhoid outbreak in the area in which the plant operated, or of any outbreak connected with its products, and


it was not considered right to take steps to recover the wholesale and retail distribution of such stocks of corned beef from the plant as were already in the country, for what I regard as the understandable reason that we consume about 80,000 tons of corned beef a year, and have done so for a great many years.
It was only last year that we could, with any certainty, impute typhoid to corned beef at all. There is no certainty yet that corned beef is involved in this epidemic, although the inquiry will be looking into this. The withdrawing of vast quantities of food on what could be the scantiest of evidence did not seem wise at the time.

Mr. G. Brown: The Minister or his colleague took steps to stop some corned beef on the high seas. What made it so much safer at home that he decided not to stop it at home?

Mr. Noble: The problem is fairly simple. Once the information came to us that this factory was not operating according to the best health standards there was a very good case for telling the factory concerned, and the Argentine Government, who had issued a certificate, that we would not release the meat. Perhaps we might consider that as a form of sanction behind the high standards that we expect from exporters. But because of the long history of freedom from any danger from corned beef, with the exception of one place—and this was one incident—

Mr. Brown: You stopped it on the high seas.

Mr. Noble: It was stopped on the high seas as soon as it was known that this plant was not carrying out the proper process. [HON. MEMBERS: "WHY?"] In our view, and in the view of our medical advisers, the risk was not sufficient to justify a withdrawal of the meat already in the country.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this matter without a Question before the House.

Mr. Ross: Very unsatisfactory.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(INQUIRIES.)

The Secretary of State may hold an inquiry into any matter relating to the functions of a local authority under this Act.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.4 p.m.

The Minister of State for Education and Science (Sir Edward Boyle): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause gives effect to an undertaking given in Committee in connection with an Amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth). It is true that he put down the Amendment in a narrower context, specifically related to the operation of Clause 6. None the less, I believe it right to have in the Bill a general power to hold an inquiry into any matter relating to the functions of a local authority.
An inquiry of the kind to which the Clause relates would be in addition to the normal Departmental investigation which will be necessary in every case, for example, before a small library authority can lose its powers under Clause 6, and the purpose of such an inquiry would be to supplement, where necessary, evidence obtained in the ordinary way by allowing members of the public to state their views. The inquiry would be a local inquiry as required by Section 290 of the 1933 Local Government Act.
I need make only one more point. My hon. Friend's Amendment in Committee referred specifically to public inquiries. It is my intention that inquiries held under the terms of the Clause should be held in public, but if that were prescribed the provisions of Section 290 of the 1933 Act would not fit. Normally, inquiries are held in public, but one can just imagine that one or two inquiries might be needed that had to be held in camera—for example, if an officer or a councillor were accused of


misconduct, or if it was thought inexpedient that allegations which had been made should be given undue publicity. But that would be the exceptional case. I merely mention the matter to show why the Clause refers to an inquiry and not specifically to a public inquiry.
I hope that with that explanation the House will agree to give the Clause a Second Reading.

Mr. Frederick Willey: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. Perhaps I may say something which will help to expedite our proceedings. In Committee, there was a reference to this Report stage, when the right hon. Gentleman was reported as saying:
It will not be impossible to have two days, if we need them, to consider a later stage of the Bill. Then we can consider museums at greater leisure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 30th April, 1964; c. 485.]
We have corresponded on the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman has accepted my assurance that he did not say that at all, but that he said we would have a full opportunity to debate the Bill at this stage. I hope that notwithstanding the other Government business we shall have that full opportunity.
I am in some difficulties about the Clause. At first, I thought that it must have come from the pen of the Secretary of State, because it seems a flamboyant provision to make by way of a new Clause. I do not want to discourage the right hon. Gentleman's responding to his hon. Friend, who was a very conscientious and helpful Member in Committee, but I think that he has responded too fully. I do not know whether there is any precedent for such a provision being made in the Bill to provide for an inquiry in these circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the circumstances that he has in mind in taking advantage of this new provision, but I should have thought that the new Clause adds nothing to the powers of the Secretary of State. Unless we have definition—and the Clause is without definition—it would appear to me that the Secretary of State already has power to hold an inquiry into a matter if he so wishes. What we are concerned about is the form of the inquiry, and I would have thought that the Clause, as drafted, would be disturbing to local authorities.
The Minister asks for powers to hold an inquiry, but we are not told what will be the form of inquiry. Although the right hon. Gentleman has said that he envisages a public inquiry he qualifies that statement by saying that he can envisage circumstances in which there would not be a public inquiry. That is thoroughly unsatisfactory. If we are providing powers for a Minister to have an inquiry we should define the form of inquiry. This is an inquiry into any matter relating to the functions of the local authority under the Bill. It seems an extraordinarily wide power for the right hon. Gentleman to seek. That is why I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should move its Second Reading. I had expected the Secretary of State himself to move the Clause and explain its necessity.
We all supported the hon. Member's argument that under Clause 6 there is a case for an inquiry, but, oddly enough, the right hon. Gentleman who is now so keen to have these powers would not provide for them in the original Clause 6. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking exceptional powers in writing into legislation a new Clause expressly providing for the power to hold an inquiry, when, first, the form of inquiry is not to be defined as it usually is defined in this sort of legislation which affects local authorities and their relationship with the central Government, and, secondly, there is no limitation as to the matter which would be the subject of inquiry. It can be into any matter relating to the functions of a local authority under the Act.
This seems an extraordinary power to take. I am sure that the Minister does not mean to exercise powers in this sense, but it seems strange when we have a Bill on which we criticise the Government for not making financial provision to assist local authorities. At the end of our consideration of the Bill in Committee the right hon. Gentleman, having previously not specifically provided for an inquiry in the provisions of Clause 6, says, "I shall now seek a general power to have an inquiry into any matters relating to the functions of a local authority under the Bill".
In other words, the Minister says that we are passing a Measure the purpose of which is appreciated, understood and supported, but when the Government are


criticised for not providing financial assistance, they claim the right to have an inquiry on any matter expressly recognised by the Bill. This seems likely to prejudice good relations between the right hon. Gentleman and the local authorities. I should have thought we would support the right hon. Gentleman that provision for an inquiry could be made where that provision is necessary, but I do not know of any precedent for the Secretary of State to seek this power.
It would not be right to accord a general power to hold an inquiry into any matter arising from the operation of the Act. I am certain that hon. Members opposite who took an active part in our consideration of the Bill in Committee were very much alive to the position and the status of local authorities. If we recognise that status as we properly should, it seems very odd to provide a general provision that the Minister can have an inquiry into the exercise of any function a local authority may exercise.
This arose in a specific context. The Roberts Committee had recommended that the Minister of Education should have powers comparable to those conferred by Section 322 of the Public Health Act, 1936, to enforce a statutory duty by the public authority which may be considered in default. In the exercise of that power there should be the right to institute an inquiry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the general claim to an inquiry on any matters arising and that he will be willing to take this matter back to reconsider it between now and the time when the Bill is considered in another place.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for so fully—indeed, more than fully—fulfilling the promise made by the Under-Secretary in our discussions in Committee. I must confess to him and to the House that in the list of Amendments I received a few days ago new Clause 1 was missing. For that reason I put down to the Government Amendment No. 24, to Clause 6, page 5, line 1, an Amendment to line 12, after "matters", to insert:
including the wishes, in so far as he can ascertain them by public enquiry or other means of the residents of the borough or urban district".

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving the substance of that for which I asked in Standing Committee.
Having listened with great care to the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I must say that I do not have exactly the same fears as he has. The Bill seeks to make local authorities run library services which are thought by the Minister to be adequate. In Clause 5, the Minister has powers to make and unmake joint boards. In Clause 6, he has powers to make or unmake library authorities in relation to smaller non-county boroughs and urban district councils. In Clause 10, the Minister will have power to remove library powers from any local authority. Under Clauses 12 and 13, and Amendments that we shall discuss later, if the Bill goes through, my right hon. Friend will have power with respect to museums and art galleries in relation to funds put up by local authorities to maintain them and charges to enter them.
These are very real and specific powers which Parliament is being asked to give to the Secretary of State. I do not have the fear about local authorities, particularly the smaller ones, and that the Secretary of State of the day will start holding too many inquiries but that he will not, before acting, hold sufficient inquiries in which the views of the ratepayer and user of the library or art gallery can be made known and brought to his attention. Therefore, I rejoice that my right hon. Friends have come to the conclusion that a general Clause of this nature is the best answer to the problem.
It will give the Secretary of State power to hold inquiries into any aspect which relates to the functions of a local authority under the Act. There is no better safeguard for ensuring that a Minister acts with circumspection and prudence and that before he acts a public inquiry shall be held at which the ordinary person can give his views publicly, and from the evidence at which Parliament can question the Minister on the rightness of his decision and support or oppose him for having made it.
Therefore, I reiterate my thanks to my right hon. Friends and part company with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. My right hon. Friends have taken the best way out of this problem.

Mr. Willey: Would not the hon. Member rather make this an obligation in the circumstances to which he referred than generally empowering the Minister to hold an inquiry?

Mr. Freeth: I think that this is the best part of a loaf I have been able to vote for. Therefore, I am thankful that I have now received it.

Mr. James Boyden: In Committee, I thought the intention of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) was that justice should not only be done to smaller local authorities, but should be seen to be done. Now it appears that the Minister is asking for power to hold an inquiry, not necessarily a public one, and that some of the value of trying to get the smaller authorities satisfied with the action of the Minister is liable to be lost.
I should have thought it necessary to be very much more specific about the nature of the inquiry, of the circumstances in which it should be held and about the people who would act as inspectors or inquirers in the interests of the Department itself, so that the whole business should not be cluttered with a mass of inquiries. When dealing with the hon. Gentleman's Amendment in Committee, the Under-Secretary said that
It is not envisaged that a public inquiry would be necessary for every case, but it is agreed that in principle this is a reasonable Amendment "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 14th April, 1964, c. 41.]
It should be stated clearly in the Bill what are the sort of reasonable conditions and circumstances in which an inquiry is to be held. There is a marked contrast between the details in the new Schedule about management and funds for the purchase of exhibits, which is a relatively simple matter, and this matter of an inquiry, on which many small authorities will take a very serious view. There should be a great deal more explanation and more specific definition in this Clause before we lightly pass what is to be a major library Act which is to last for 15, or 20 or more years.

Mr. A. P. Costain: My right hon. Friend will recall that immediately prior to the Bill being introduced, and following the Roberts Report, I had considerable correspondence with him on this matter. It is

most important from the small local authority point of view that it has the opportunity of knowing that an inquiry will be held and that the Secretary of State will not make his decision without being fully cognisant of the effects of the scheme by the local authority. That being so, I should like to thank my right hon. Friend and welcome the Clause.

Sir Barnett Stross: The Minister will remember that some of us, including myself, were nervous that there might not be enough inquiries or that action might be taken by him without an inquiry. I pleaded—I think that he has taken note of it under Clause 10—that he should not take action without an inquiry. It is, therefore, very difficult for me not to find this new Clause agreeable. Although it is a blanket Clause, very wide indeed, it paves the way for a later Amendment which the Minister has put down under Clause 10 and in which he promises that he will not take action against a local authority without a local inquiry.
The Parliamentary Secretary dealt with this matter in Standing Committee. He made it clear that the Minister was prepared to accept the substance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth), but he did not envisage that in every case it need be a public inquiry. He felt that the principle was correct and that it was reasonable. I think that this is correct and, therefore, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Basingstoke and with the Minister for giving way and bringing this Clause forward.
I must admit, however, that the form in which it is brought forward and the words used seem to me to be unusual. I have never quite seen anything like this before—that a new Clause should simply say, what I would have thought the Minister had power to do in any event, that he should have the power to hold an inquiry. I would have thought that was always within the Minister's right, and I hope that he will tell us exactly why he had to use this form of words and whether there was any way in which he would have been prevented from using his powers if those words had not been introduced in the new Clause.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: It would seem to me that hon. Members on both sides of the House would want to see effective central Government supervision over the library service. During the Committee stage of the Bill, it quickly became apparent that there was no real measure of disagreement here. I was, however, surprised to see this new Clause. Frankly, I do not fully understand it, but that may well be because I was not easily able to hear what the Minister said when introducing the new Clause because of the time at which it was introduced.
It seems to me that, already, under Clause 10(1), the Minister has power to hold an inquiry into matters arising from failures by local authorities to implement and carry out efficient library services. We are told in subsection (1,a and b) that if
a complaint is made to the Minister that any library authority has failed to carry out duties relating to the public library service imposed on it by or under this Act; or
(b) the Minister is of opinion that an investigation should be made as to whether any such failure by a library authority has occurred.
the Minister may hold an inquiry into the matter ".
I may have missed something said earlier, but I am not clear in what way this Clause is necessary for extending power to the Minister which he apparently already has.

Sir B. Stross: My hon. Friend has quoted from Clause 10 (1,a and b), but when we come to subsection (2) we note that there the Minister has taken powers to take action without an inquiry and there are the words, "or in any other case". He has put this right now as a result of the debate that we had with him, and I, too, find myself wondering why, as he put that right in that case, he now needs to bring a new Clause before us for powers which I thought that he had in any event.

Mr. O'Malley: Perhaps my hon. Friend will correct me if I misinterpreted what he said. I think that the point of what he said was that in a later Amendment connected with the subject matter of the new Clause, the Minister now will hold an inquiry before using his default powers, but this does not affect the basic question which we are asking on this new Clause.
In dealing with this kind of Clause that, of course, I welcome central Government supervision and inquiry over the library service. The lack of any reasonable uniform minimum standard throughout the country revealed in the Blue Books which are available has clearly demonstrated the need for this kind of supervision. At the same time, I feel that the Minister has taken upon himself extremely wide powers. I should like to ask him: what would be the situation that arises if a local authority decides to avail itself of its powers under Clause 12, where a local authority, whether a library authority or not, may decide to provide and maintain museums and art galleries?
We have an interesting situation, one which, I think, underlies the whole of the Bill, that with this Clause we shall have presumably v/hat is, as far as I know, a new constitutional position, where a local authority will be subject to a considerable degree of supervision by the central Government and the Government will be making no financial contribution whatever to this service of museums or art galleries, or, for that matter, to the library service as a whole. I should like the Minister to give much more explanation of this blanket type Clause before I would be prepared to consider it favourably.
I want to make one last comment which, if anything, is against the type of power which the Minister is giving himself in this Clause. In Committee, there was discussion about the need for an adequate inspectorate, perhaps on the lines of inspectors of schools, to exercise a useful and continuous degree of supervision and to give advice to the library authorities. We were told by the Under-Secretary that the Government did not feel able to accept this kind of Clause, and it seemed to some of us at the time that what the Government were trying to do was to run the library service and a central Government supervision of the library service on the cheap. It seems to me that it would have been much more useful if the right hon. Gentleman had introduced a new Clause which would have provided an adequate inspectorate to give the kind of supervision which we want without frequent recourse to this kind of inquiry.
I am not sure that the new Clause adds anything to the Minister's powers. If it does, no doubt he will tell us what it adds. But he is introducing the Clause as a substitute for proper Government supervision by an inspection of libraries. I should like to envisage that in future there will be a full-time inspectorate with the duties of going round libraries to exercise a proper degree of supervision and to give the advice which inspectors of schools give to the schools.
In introducing such a Clause the Minister is doing a disservice to himself and to the Bill. It would have been much more useful to have made proper provision for an inspectorate. Unless the Minister gives a full and satisfactory explanation why he is taking this blanket power in the Clause, I shall feel obliged to oppose it.

4.30 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: The speeches which we have heard have indicated that there is a considerable degree of disquiet on this side of the House about putting into the Bill a Clause of this nature. It gives the Minister extremely wide powers.
There were two places in the Bill in which, it was generally agreed in Committee, some kind of inquiry might be desirable. The first concerned the matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) where a small local authority felt that it was in some danger of extinction, it was right and proper that there should be a complete opportunity for it to set out its case and for the arguments to be fully examined by public opinion. There would be an inquiry in public so that the citizens concerned would be completely appraised of the issues.
In that case we are in entire agreement, and we have no objection to an inquiry of that type. Within my own constituency, for example, there is a small non-county borough which is a library authority. I am sure that the ancient Borough of Flint would feel deeply aggrieved if it wished to keep its library and if it were told that it would be deprived of this function without any opportunity of the fullest possible discussion. We are completely at one with

the Minister in the need for an inquiry in such cases. When the Joint Under-Secretary of State said that his right hon. Friend was prepared to support an Amendment on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Basingstoke, we made no objection.
My hon. Friends have pointed out that Clause 10 provides the Minister with power to hold an inquiry. By a later Amendment he proposes to make it clear that he recognises that in the circumstances envisaged in Clause 10 an inquiry is desirable. He proposes to amend the Bill in that sense to make it clear beyond peradventure that the kind of action which might be taken under Clause 10 would not be taken without some inquiry.
It is not in order to discuss Clause 10 in detail at this stage, but, as I have shown, we have two sets of circumstances. The first is where the library is in default in carrying out its duties and the second is where a library authority might be deprived of its powers of running a library. In those circumstances an inquiry is clearly desirable.
But what are the other circumstances? We have not been told. Why are there some other circumstances, unspecified beyond those two, in which the Minister thinks that he should hold an inquiry—other than the other kind of supervision which, as my hon. Friends have suggested, we thought ought to be done by means of an inspectorate?
I very much hope that by taking powers under the Clause the Minister will not put himself in the position, for example, in which he or a successor thinks that he ought to exercise some censorship of the local authority's selection of books. This is a function of the local authority under the Act. It would be highly undesirable for the Minister to be open to petition from the public that he should hold an inquiry into the selection of books by such-and-such a library authority. He might then be setting himself as an arbiter of taste or morals over and above the elected representatives of the people who are running the library. By taking powers of this kind the Secretary of State might easily be put into that position.
We might have some opposition who, for one reason or another, objected to


the policy of the local librarian and possibly were unable to obtain satisfaction from the library committee of the local authority. They would say, ''Under the Act the Secretary of State may hold an inquiry into any matter relating to the functions of a local authority under this Act." They might say, "Let us therefore organise a petition. We can all see how it can be done. We will petition the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry". They would be entitled to do so.
Furthermore, unless we have a better explanation of the purpose of the new Clause, it seems to me that they would be almost encouraged to do so, because if the Minister feels that he ought to hold
an inquiry into any matter relating to the functions of a local authority under this Act",
surely the selection of books might be such a matter.
The fact that I am not just conjuring this up out of my imagination is shown by a document which I have here—a note sent to the members of one of the outer London authorities by its town clerk, in which he remarks, in part of his comments for the guidance of members in their consideration of the Bill:
It is of fundamental importance that the nature of book selection should as hitherto should be in the hands of local authorities. If this right is forfeited in any degree one of the greatest social advantages of the public library system might well be lost.
The fear is already there that the powers which the Minister is taking under the Bill might conceivably be extended in such a way as to interfere with the free choice of librarians, subject to the guidance of the members of the local authorities' committee on the type of book selection and the nature of the selection. It seems to me, therefore, that it is most inadvisable to put the new Clause into the Bill. It does not seem in the least necessary, having regard to the more circumscribed functions for which we recognise that inquiries are needed. The Clause gives limitless power within the broad terms of the Act to hold an inquiry.
The Minister of State also made another remark which worried me considerably in considering whether such inquiries might be in public or in camera, when he referred to the possibilities of misconduct. What does this mean? Does it mean that the Secretary of State may

be contemplating intervention between the employing authority and one of its servants? Will the Minister make quite clear what his reference to "possible misconduct" means? He does not intend to pay even part of the salaries of the staffs of the library. I shall be glad of a fuller explanation of the meaning of that remark, which was made in parenthesis. I am certain that library authorities, who are none too happy about the Bill as it is., will feel themselves considerably affronted if under a new Clause of this type the Secretary of State may take powers under himself to inquire possibly into disciplinary matters between themselves and one of their servants. If it is not that kind of misconduct, I am not clear whose misconduct the Minister has in mind. Is he to act as a sort of court of appeal? It is a very serious matter if that is what he intends to do. If powers are taken in terms that an inquiry can be held
into any matter relating to the functions of a local authority under this Act
there might be all kinds of hullabaloo about someone in the library service having taken some action which was perhaps distasteful to some section of the public. There might be meetings, petitions, and so forth, to induce the Secretary of State to exercise his powers to hold an inquiry into some function of local authority under the Bill when enacted.
In some excess of zeal the Secretary of State is laying himself open to every kind of possible objection. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the difficulties of principle about the Bill, namely, that the Secretary of State is taking powers to order local authorities around without making any contribution towards the expense, something which nobody in this country is very fond of Having done all that, it is possible that under the new Clause he may appear to be adding insult to injury.
We are at least entitled to know in much clearer terms why it was necessary to table the new Clause, instead of making specific provision for inquiries in those parts of the Bill where it seems to us that such powers might be requisite and where, in those properly described and circumscribed circumstances, we would have no objection.

Sir E. Boyle: By leave of the House—I remind hon. Members that we are on


Report, so we can speak again only by leave of the House—I will reply briefly to some of the points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Rother-ham (Mr. O'Malley) said that he found this a difficult Clause to understand. Perhaps I, having been responsible for a certain amount of legislation, may be allowed to say that I should have thought that the Clause was easier to understand than most.

Mr. O'Malley: I said that I found it difficult to understand because I could not hear the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech.

Sir E. Boyle: I hope that the hon. Gentleman can hear me now. We have not had any criticisms of the Clause from the local authority associations. That, in a way, is hardly surprising, because it is a slightly doubtful use of language, or slightly misleading, to refer to the Secretary of State taking very strong powers under the Clause. In a sense, the right to
hold an inquiry into any matter relating to the functions of a local authority under this Act
could be fairly regarded as a moderation of the Secretary of State's powers—that is to say, in one or two important administrative respects it means that before the Secretary of State exercises his powers he is in a position, not merely to make a departmental investigation, but also to allow members of the public to state their views.
I agree that the case we are thinking of most here is the case under Clause 6 which was raised by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary in Committee—namely, the case of a small library authority which might be in danger of losing its powers. However, on reflection, I think that it would not have been right to limit the new Clause strictly to that case, which was so fully canvassed in Committee.
Here, I would mention what was said, very fairly, by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). We have not had a libraries Bill for about 70 years. We may well not have another libraries Measure for about 20 or 40 years, and I am doubtful how far it would have been wise in the Bill to circumscribe too precisely the circumstances

in which the Secretary of State could hold an inquiry. It seems to me to be reasonable to make a general provision that he can
hold an inquiry into any matter relating to the functions of a local authority under this Act.

Mr. Boyden: One of the matters which would be most useful to smaller authorities and, indeed, to take-over authorities would be to know precisely the circumstances and conditions in which an inquiry would take place about the facts involved in a take-over. This could be set out better in the new Clause than in any other Clause. The other parts of the Bill are vague about this.

Sir E. Boyle: I am thinking of the future and of the fact that, after all, under the Bill we are giving the Secretary of State, for the first time, the power to superintend and promote the development of the public library service provided by local authorities. We have an Amendment to secure the latter object later. Looking ahead, it seems to me to be wrong to circumscribe the circumstances in which an inquiry could be held.
4.45 p.m.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) raised the most substantial point—I should like to meet her on this—when she said that there might be a danger of the Secretary of State responding too easily to pressures to hold a public inquiry. It was precisely with that point in view that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, when making his very brief intervention in Committee, said that even with regard to Clause 6 it was not envisaged that a public inquiry would be necessary for every case. I should like to make it clear to the House today that my right hon. and learned Friend and I regard the public inquiry as, so to speak, the exceptional case rather than as the regular rule, even as regards Clause 6.
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that the Clause should not be thought of as in any sense conferring a sort of presumption that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree to hold a public inquiry on any and every matter about which local opinion is roused. This should be thought of as a reserve power, to be used in cases where there may be particular doubts as to


what the facts are regarding, for example, the merits of a county service or a borough service, and so on. It would not be my right hon. and learned Friend's intention to lay himself open to every conceivable pressure in relation to the Clause.

Mr. Willey: No one would have any qualms about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's exercise of the power, but does he not recognise that if the initiative lies with the Secretary of State to hold such an inquiry it can be a derogation of representative government? If we recognise local authorities, we recognise them as local government. For the Secretary of State to have the power to say, "We may differ about something. I shall hold a local inquiry" is a matter which ought to be defined.

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member's question leads me to my last point. Hon. Members have asked whether there is any precedent for this in other services. The answer is that there is a precedent in Section 93 of the Education Act, 1944. It is quite true that the Clause differs, because it refers to
the functions of a local authority
and not to those of the Secretary of State. However, I think that the significance of this can be exaggerated, because the library service is wholly provided by the local authorities and the Secretary of State here, unlike his relations with the education service, has no direct library functions. I believe that Section 93 of the 1944 Act is a fairly close analogy to the new Clause. I think that the House must read the new Clause together with Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933. To use a figure of speech which the hon. Lady will recognise, Section 290 in a sense puts flesh on the skeleton.
I hope that with this explanation in answer to the points raised by hon. Members opposite we can now pass the Clause.

Mr. O'Malley: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the query I raised about the power of the Secretary of State which would arise from local authorities providing museums and art galleries under Clause 12? Does the Minister of State envisage that, as a result of the new Clause, the central Government might well play an active part in, or

interfere with, these two functions, which are optional powers at the discretion of the local authority?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman will know that, when a Clause of this kind is being passed, he is a very unwise member of the Government who answers hypothetical questions on the detailed administration. Whether or not the Secretary of State decided to do so, whatever decision was taken, this is a point which could reasonably arise, though I would not like to be pressed further than that this afternoon.

Mrs. White: What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by his reference to "misconduct"? Has he consulted the local authority associations on the new Clause?

Sir E. Boyle: The local authority associations have had every opportunity to comment on the new Clause. We have received no representations on this point.
As to the question I raised about misconduct, I gave that only as an example to show exactly why it might be conceivable that an inquiry would not be a public inquiry. I did not mean to suggest that the Secretary of State would wish to make a regular practice of interfering in disciplinary matters, but simply that, as the hon. Lady will be aware, in the millionth case, as it were, a personal issue of this character can arise, and, clearly, that might not be a suitable issue for a public inquiry.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(CHARGES FOR ADMISSION TO MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES

(1) A local authority may make a charge for admission to a museum or art gallery maintained by it under section 12 of this Act.

(2) In determining whether, and in what manner, to exercise its powers under this section in relation to a museum or gallery, a local authority shall take into account the need to secure that the museum or gallery plays its full part in the promotion of education in the area, and shall have particular regard to the interests of children and students.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause arises out of a discussion we had in Standing Committee on 30th April, our last sitting upstairs. It empowers local authorities to charge for admission to museums or art galleries which they maintain, but subsection (2) requires them to take account of the interests of education. I think I am interpreting the wish of the whole Standing Committee in saying that when we discussed this matter it was felt that we should spell out this point specifically, and subsection (2) does that.
As the law stands—and I say this particularly for the benefit of that minority of the House who were not upstairs in Standing Committee—local authorities may charge for admission to their art galleries but not museums, apart from those which are provided under the Museums and Gymnasiums Act, 1891, and certain museums for which charges are authorised under local Acts. In addition, charges for admission can be made where a museum is housed in an ancient monument.
There was widespread feeling in Committee that there was little reason for this distinction. In practice it is hard to say whether an institution is a museum or art gallery. Still less it is reasonable to attempt to distinguish between different types of museums; for example, to distinguish between a natural history and a folk museum. Nor would it be practicable, for museums very often contain a wide range of objects.
For the reasons I gave in Committee upstairs, I agree that the original Clause, which we negatived, was clearly unsatisfactory. It is clear from the Survey of the Standing Commission that there is a considerable variety in the circumstances of museums—in what they have to offer and in the type of person they are likely to attract. After consideration, my right hon. and learned Friend and I have concluded that it would not be practicable to prescribe by law which museum should be allowed to charge and which should not or what classes of person, if any, should be exempted.
For example, in Committee we had some discussion on this subject, when the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) came to acquiesce in the view that there were real difficulties in giving local authorities power to

charge non-residents but not residents. We believe that the best course is to let local authorities decide each case on its merits, and that is what we have done in the new Clause.
I must make it plain, both to the House and outside, that the Clause is not in any way intended to encourage local authorities to introduce charges where they do not already exist without regard to the interests of education. It is not a matter of indifference to either the Government or the House as a whole that the best possible use is made of museums and art galleries. We all felt in Standing Committee that these institutions have an important educational function to perform, and that is why subsection (2) specifically states that:
…a local authority shall take into account the need to secure that the museum or gallery plays its full part in the promotion of education in the area, and shall have particular regard to the interests of children and students.
Those words are integral to the Clause.

Mr. Willey: My hon. Friends and I appreciate that what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I should like to make it clear that if we accept the new Clause we will do so with the greatest reluctance. We would rather that the right hon. Gentleman accepted, as we have for public libraries, the general principle that they should be free—and then endeavour to define the exceptions. We do not quarrel with what he has said, but we believe that we should approach this matter as we have in regard to public libraries; that they should be free.
We accept the view of the Libraries Association and the Roberts Committee, that it should be a free service. We also accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposals about parts of the service, exceptional parts, being subject to a charge, because we realise that otherwise there might be a disincentive to some authorities to make the provision of certain things which it is desirable should be provided. We take the same view in this respect, and we are obliged for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Government not expecting a general imposition of charges.
We also appreciate the qualification made in subsection (2) of the Clause. It is without sanction, but not without value and, of course, it is of considerable value


to indicate to local authorities that the purposes of museums, as far as they are educational, should not be prejudiced by being made subject to a charge. My hon. Friends and I hope that local authorities will pay regard to subsection (2), but it would have been far better had the right hon. Gentleman made it equally clear, as we have done for the library service, that this is essentially a free service, that it should be a free service, and that it is exceptional if we provide and legislate for charges to be made. I hope that it will be made clear outside the House that we expect this to be a free service, unless there are really exceptional circumstances, when local authorities would be right to make a charge.
The difficulty in which my hon. Friends and I find ourselves in discussing this matter is that the Government have taken a step which, by and large, we support, although this is not a museums Bill. We would have liked a museums Measure. We now have a great deal of information. Some of my hon. Friends and I pressed in Standing Committee for there to be something like a further Report or a White Paper on museums. We now have some information, but I am sure that all hon. Members would not like this occasion to pass without it being made clear that we would have liked to have had a purely museums Bill. However, we must consider this matter in its present context.
All hon. Members felt in Standing Committee, when we considered the provisions of the Bill as originally drafted—and which we amended—that we faced two difficulties. The Parliamentary Secretary explained the first—that to preserve the status quo was not as easy a matter as the Government had assumed. Secondly, during our discussions, our attention was drawn to the difficulties of some authorities, such as York and Bath.
When discussing the subject of allowing local authorities to charge, we should consider the present situation; and we are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the initiative he took, I believe in another capacity. Consider, for example, what was stated in the Survey of Provincial Museums and Galleries. The Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries recommended in paragraph 208:
(1) That all local authorities should, as a matter of urgency, join with the other local

authorities and voluntary organisations maintaining museums in their area, in reviewing the provision of museums in their area, and prepare a co-ordinated scheme for improvements and developments, and that their review should include the provision of school museum services;
(2) That Her Majesty's Government should be prepared to give financial assistance up to the equivalent of the amount subscribed locally, towards the initial expense of setting up schemes for the mutual help of museums in the ways suggested …and in so far as these schemes involve the provision of free or subsidised services to the poorer museums, that Her Majesty's Government should be prepared to contribute up to the equivalent of the amount subscribed locally to this continuing expense…
(3) That Her Majesty's Government should be prepared to make grants up to the equivalent of the amount subscribed locally to assist museums which are unable to raise capital for the buildings, show-cases, lighting, etc., which are necessary for approved development and reorganisation…"
In the light of such a Report, and such recommendations, it is very disappointing merely to get a new Clause that allows local authorities to have a power they did not previously have to charge for admission to museums.
5.0 p.m.
Throughout the progress of this Bill we have argued that one of its weaknesses is that the Government are not financially supporting the provision of an adequate library service. Here we have the same position, where their attention has been called to the condition of museums and art galleries. I say at once, however, that this new Clause is far less discouraging than one would have expected. I note, and I shall be happy to visit them when in the locality, that there are excellent museums and art galleries in the country; there are some works of art I have noted that I wish to see when in the vicinity. But this is a national heritage, and one should not just have a new Clause allowing charges to be made, but some constructive response from the Government.
First of all, therefore, we can appreciate the Government's reasons for bringing forward this provision, but here, again, they are legislating on the cheap. They are not giving that constructive assistance and aid to local authorities that they should be providing if they want a considerable improvement, as we all do, in the provision of museums and art


galleries. In particular, we say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he calls attention, as he should, to the importance of the museum and the art gallery in the promotion of education in the area, this is a responsibility that he ought partly to shoulder.
In the light of the Report and the survey, it is not enough to tell the House, "We are cognisant of the difficulties of local authorities in providing museums, so we shall allow them to make charges." I expected to hear far more from the right hon. Gentleman today about this problem. We have this important survey. We never have adequate opportunity in this House to debate such reports. Here was the opportunity, not only for the right hon. Gentleman to call attention to the Report but also to give some information on what action the Government intended to take in support of such charges as may be made and such assistance as local authorities may get from imposing such charges.
When we turn to the information in the Report of the cases in which charges are made and those in which they are not made there is nothing at all to support the provisions of this Clause. It is surprising, when one sees some of the remarkable provision made by progressive authorities of museums, and particularly of art galleries, to find that, almost invariably, there is no charge, and to find, too, that where a charge is made there are only a few exceptional cases in which it materially contributes to the cost of the maintenance of the museums.
It is true, looking at this appendix, that Stratford makes more money than anywhere else—it says £24,000 here—but we know that as an authority Stratford has not been forthcoming in making provision. It is true, too, and one would regard it as significant, and we accepted it in Standing Committee, that York has a revenue of about £12,000. There are one or two other cases in which there is a fairly substantial revenue, but they are the sort of cases one would expect—I think that I have mentioned Bath and the Royal Pavilion at Brighton. Apart from these exceptional cases, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman could generally make out a case for the need for this Clause.
This is another reason why I would argue again that this provision should

have been made in a way similar to that by which we provided for the public library exception; by making it quite clear that it would be allowed only in exceptional cases. There should have been some attempt at definition in this case, or some attempt at definition to ensure that the cases would be exceptional.
Having said that, I recognise, as we did in the case of public libraries, that the right hon. Gentleman is faced with the position—and one has to accept it, however much one may believe in the principle of free libraries, museums and art galleries—that the local authority associations made representations generally supporting his action. From this side, we would not wish to prejudice the provision of provincial museums and art galleries by discouraging those authorities which believe that they can get some revenue by making charges. But, studying this appendix, I should have thought that it would have been possible more closely to have defined the circumstances, if not the cases, in which a charge should be allowed.
Our lack of enthusiasm for this new Clause is caused by the Government themselves not doing sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt later call attention to some of the things that have been done, but I am sure that he will recognise that they have been inadequate. He will recognise that if we are to improve the position radically, and make our provision more comparable with that made in other countries, much more positive, straightforward financial support will have to be given to those local authorities which enterprisingly provide museums and art galleries.
The other reluctance we have about the Clause arises from the fact that as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, when we had a very prolonged debate in the Committee about charges, many of his hon. Friends pressed him to ensure that the public library service should cease to be a free service. On one occasion I attempted to help by moving the Closure, but I could not get a majority, and the debate continued. There was considerable political pressure on the right hon. Gentleman to derogate the principle of the free library service.
In such circumstances, we have to be far more forthright than the right hon.


Gentleman has been so far in seeing that we do not intend any such permission as may be given by the new Clause to derogate from the general principle that our museums and art galleries are free. Many of us—and, certainly, many outside the Committee—were very disturbed by the very clear division in the Conservative Party about the financing of services such as this—

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me in this debate. I might remind him, although I am sure he recollects it, that when the Division was taken on that subject, if we ignore hon. Members opposite, on the Conservative side, in fact, the Government view was upheld by a 2 to 1 vote—by 10 votes to 5. So the hon. Gentleman should not make too heavy weather of it.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I said that there was a Division, but certainly we had the most prolonged debate in the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it was an interesting debate and that it was largely a question of principle whether we should finance such services by way of general taxation or whether by poll tax or capitation.
If we are to allow the general principle, therefore, to be breached by this Clause, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to look at the Clause again to see whether it can be more narrowly drawn in order to make it quite clear that what the Committee would have done would be to recognise, as we did in the case of the public libraries, that there were some authorities that might have been in difficulties if the power to make charges was absolutely withdrawn.
Here we are doing something rather different. We are giving a general power to make charges. It is quite clear that we advise local authorities of the qualification which they should bear in mind if they exercise that power. I hope, however, that if the Government put forward this Clause they will accept a much greater positive responsibility themselves and that they recognise that the museum and art gallery provision is not likely to be radically improved by merely allowing some local authorities to make charges. In fact, as the Roberts Committee pointed out, in the case of public libraries this is unlikely to help very much at all.
Quite apart from this, however, particularly in view of the responsibility of the Government themselves for some of our national institutions, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make it much clearer than it is at present that we accept this very reluctantly and accept it merely not to prejudice some authorities which make excellent provision at present and that our purpose is to preserve the general principle that provincial museums and art galleries will remain free.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I wish once again to support my right hon. Friend on this new Clause although in Standing Committee I did not actually ask him to introduce such a Clause. I take very great issue with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) when he suggests that the same principle as regards free entry should be upheld in the case of museums—as it is upheld in the Bill generally—as in the case of public libraries.
First of all, under the Bill we demand that local authorities should provide public libraries. Under Clause 12 we merely state that local authorities may provide museums and art galleries. Secondly, we rightly insist that the library service should be comprehensive, that anybody living in any local authority's area should be able to get hold of a book, and to this end we are setting up under the Bill a system of regional councils and interlocking local arrangements.
In the case of a museum we could not possibly demand that, for instance, a mummy should be in more than one place at the same time. We cannot demand that every local authority should have a similarly sized museum. The particular type of locality, the particular interests of the educational institutions and, indeed, of past citizens will all have created the type of museum and the speciality of the museum which is in the area.
Some museums are very old established and some may well be just starting now. Some may be well endowed and some have no endowment at all. When we consider this multiplicity of variety of such museums from, say, the York and Stratford Museums, on the one hand, to the large museums of city councils on the other, and, yet again, to smaller authorities which may only now be getting with the new opportunities under the Bill the


chance of starting up a museum or art gallery, then I think that the only principle which it is reasonable to adopt is one which permits the local authority to adopt such charges, if any, and in whatever manner seems best to it as shall enable its museum or art gallery to be a thriving concern.
5.15 p.m.
Secondly, I support my right hon. Friend on the Clause because it gives the power to local authorities when in some cases they do not have it and enables them to retain it when they do. I do not believe that we can want to take powers away from local authorities. Here we are stating quite categorically that though a library authority may be a museum and public gallery authority, even when it is not it may become one with the consent of the Minister and may adopt whatever method of finance seems best to it. Let us remember that the local authority is just as much an elected body as we are. I think it right in matters such as these that the local authority and not Parliament should be the ultimate decision-making body. Therefore, I very strongly support my right hon. Friend on the Clause.

Sir B. Stross: This new Clause consists of two parts. The first fragment is permissive, and only permissive, but the second part is rather different. There is a strong directive in the Clause, namely, that great care be taken as far as students and children are concerned that the full educational possibilities inherent in museums and art galleries should be taken note of. Therefore, it seems that what the Minister had in mind was that, whereas he wanted to bring some order into the picture, when he framed the Clause there was the possibility that most authorities might begin to charge. The truth is, of course, that this is most unlikely.
When on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations I argued an Amendment suggesting that non-residents might be charged it was because I had in mind certain art galleries and museums, such as the York, for example, where the great majority of those who came to enjoy the gallery or museum came from outside, and, very often, from abroad. Had I thought that this was not

the case I would not have moved the Amendment because I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) who has spoken so powerfully in favour of a free museum service, believe that in principle we must adhere to such a service.
We are dealing here, however, not with our national institutions, which I am sure all of us in the House at the moment would agree must be made available freely to our people, but with what is provided by the ratepayers. The ratepayers elect their representatives, and I think it is true to say, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) did, that the elected representatives are very near indeed to the people whom they serve. Therefore, I think that there is less danger of anything going wrong by way of the imposition of charges unnecessarily at that level than there is in some countries where charges are imposed for national institutions.
I think that we have a right to take great pride in the fact that our great national galleries—the Tate, the National Gallery, the British Museum, and so on—are all freely available. We know very well that this is not the case in other countries. In those countries the majority of the finance comes from foreign visitors. I think that charges tend to be a disincentive to the people of the country concerned to enjoy the very treasures which they ought to have freely available to them.
The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North have pointed out that we were in difficulty about this because of the way in which legislation has grown up. I have had a good deal of correspondence with directors of galleries in the provinces, including Manchester, Leeds, Doncaster, Temple Newsam, and Plymouth, and as a member of the Museums Association I have some knowledge of this matter. They are against charges as a general principle but there are specific galleries, not so much art galleries as folk museums, where what is shown is not under glass but is in a series of small rooms which are difficult to police. The chance of damage is high. Damage was done at Temple Newsam until a small charge was applied. An admission charge


as small as 3d. was enough to bring damage down to a minimum.
In these circumstances, we have the right to say to local authorities that if this is the way in which they want to protect their museums and exhibits they should be able to do so. I support the Clause because it is permissive under subsection (1) and it gives a clear indication in subsection (2) that there must be no abuse of the question of charges and that children and students must be admitted freely even into folk museums. I hope that this will always be the case.
Stoke-on-Trent has a most interesting art gallery and museum specialising in the exhibition of pottery. I believe that we have about the third or fourth best provincial collection in the world. Our collection of old English pottery from a little earlier than Toft to the present day is better than any in the world. There has never been any thought of charges for admission, but one could imagine an occasion when in a gallery like that it was desired to give a special exhibition and to have premises large enough to show it and to bring in pottery from all over the world, to compare, for instance, old English pottery with Peruvian or Moorish work.
This would make it extremely expensive for insurance, freight, and the preparation of the exhibition, and if it were only a temporary exhibition I would not deny my local authority the right to make a charge for five or six weeks. I would be fearful that, if we did not allow charges for special exhibitions of this kind, we would tend not to have them. This is true at the national level. One cannot visit the great exhibitions at the Tate Gallery, organised by the Arts Council and other organisations, without paying an admission charge. We do not grumble about that, but we would grumble if we were ever charged for entering the Tate Gallery in normal circumstances to see our own national collection.
I therefore support the Clause. I hope that what the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has said will be noted throughout the country. Both said in effect that they were against the principle of charging, but to make it possible for certain folk museums and other institutions to carry on with their work we

should allow charges to be made and, rather than make exceptions, the Clause should give permissive power to any local authority to make a charge if it so wished. We sincerely hope that in no circumstances will charges be imposed without good reason.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: In the welter of congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Education and Science, in which I join, my mind goes back to the Second Reading of the Bill during which Clause 13 as it then stood positively prohibited any charge whatever for admission to museums and art galleries. I drew attention to it at the time and said that it was a. monstrous obstacle to letting people of the locality, and of the country as a whole, see the nation's art treasures. This was chiefly because the local authorities could not be expected to kep their art galleries open without charge on Sunday afternoons and similar times when a considerable sum had to be paid to staff.
I was anxious because at the only time of the week when the mass of the population have the opportunity of seeing these things they would not have that opportunity if the veto against admission charges was maintained. My right hon. Friend has come right round, and I congratulate him on the care and the flexibility which he has shown in dealing with points raised in Committee.
This is a fine example of how a Minister should deal with a matter like this, which naturally rouses contention and digs somewhat into dearly held doctrine. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that those who love art treasures and interesting objects in museums will be eternally grateful to him, because now a great many of us will be able to see them whereas in the past we were not able to do so.

Mr. Sydney Irving: I oppose the new Clause, because it is a pity that the Bill which so courageously sustains the principle of a free library service should in its terms in other parts, even if unintentionally, open the door to a possible extension of charges for museum services. I have never been convinced that there should be a distinction between the ways in which we treat museums and libraries. Properly


viewed, they both have an important educational part to play in our communities. I do not want to see anything that acts as a deterrent to people, and particularly the young, using our museums.
If it hinges on whether a local authority can afford to keep its museum open on a Sunday afternoon, and if this is the criterion of charges, I am not sure that I would trust a local authority with the decision about making charges in this way. Responsibility should be viewed on a bigger canvas. It is a superficial view to consider the question of charges on the basis of whether or not it is possible to keep a museum open on a Sunday afternoon.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) talked about the need for local authorities being able to make charges to make it possible for them to get off the ground in organising and developing museums. This puts a penalty on people who live in the areas of small local authorities. They cannot enjoy museums unless they are able to pay, whereas the richer authorities can provide the service out of the rates. If money is not available in any other way, the alternative is that there should be money available from Government grants. We have not yet fully exploited museums and their value as an educational service.
5.30 p.m.
It is not just a question of charges. What deters many local authorities, particularly small authorities, is the difficulty of getting the initial money to reorganise old museums and to bring them up-to-date and to get them in such a state as to allow payment of the ordinary recurrent expenditure necessary to sustain them in operation. In the past, the Carnegie Trustees have helped considerably and generously in this respect. My own small authority was able to set the pattern for many bigger authorities through a Carnegie grant and the help of Dr. Swinton, and also a great deal of pulling on a shoestring. But it is this initial grant which is necessary if we are to get some of our local museums into a position where they can be of real value in the localities.
I regret very much that the new Clause should be drafted in this way, because the

Minister has said that it is not his intention that local authorities should charge for museum services except in exceptional circumstances. My experience of local government is extensive enough for me to know that when local authority committees consider what they will do they do not have before them either the terms of the Bill or the debates in which the Minister expressed his view—and I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for expressing himself very forcefully on this issue. I very much regret that the new Clause has not been drafted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, with a general prohibition with an attempt later to try to define the exceptions which could be supported by the Minister and by the circumstances of the case.
I hope that the Minister will look at this new Clause again and will try to introduce something more of a general prohibition. If he cannot do that, I plead with him to undertake to express forcibly in a circular the view which he has expressed today so that at every stage local authorities are clear about his view.

Mr. Boyden: I am glad that the Minister has taken such a firm line in the second part of subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause, in which he says that
a local authority shall take into account the need to secure that the museum or gallery plays its full part in the promotion of education in the area, and shall have particular regard to the interests of children and students.
I say that because, in 1956, I was a member of a working party of the National Institute for Adult Education which reported on museums and adult education. The opening sentence of our report was a quotation from Dr. Douglas Allan:
… museums are education. They exist only to further it; They can be neither provided, maintained, nor utilised without it".
At that time this was not the generalisation that Dr. Allan said it was, and in this sense the Minister is making some progress, because by no means all curators of museums give attention to the educational side. There is a conflict in the museum world between those who are pure conservatives and those who are interested in the educational side of museums.
In this Report almost the first words of our own were:
Deliberate educational use of museum resources is a relatively modern idea, and is hampered by uncertainties of purpose, defects in organisation, conflicts of jurisdiction and administration and by fundamental inadequacies of finance and staff.
I do not know what else we could have said, but what was said then is still pretty much applicable today, and the proposed new Clause goes very little way to remedy the serious position of the museums and their function in education.
When I proposed in Committee that there should be special Government assistance for special collections in libraries, I felt that I was defrauded by the Joint Under-Secretary of State when he said that the V. and A. grant was to include libraries' special historical books and was to be doubled from £25,000 to £50,000. I thought that there was something a little odd about those figures, but I did not have with me the survey of provincial museums and galleries. Hon. Members opposite are always talking about doubling things, but when one looks into the matter one finds, as was said at Question Time today, that they are not doubling very much. The Rosse Committee, in talking about the V. and A. grant, recommended that the sum should be increased from £25,000 to £200,000 without making allowance for the concession which has been made now for the buying of specialist books for libraries. Therefore, the concession which made me uneasy was a very feeble one, and I quote it again because it is so characteristic of the way in which the Government have throughout handled the question of museums.

Sir E. Boyle: What is the reference?

Mr. Boyden: It is recommendation 210(iv) on page 75:
An increase from £25,000 to £200,000 in the Victoria and Albert Museum grant-in-aid of purchases and proportionate increase in the grant-in-aid administered by the Royal Scottish Museum: subject to review in the light of need—say £225,000".
I have been very fair; I have left off the £25,000. In paragraph 211 the Committee says that this sum
is also very modest in comparison with Her Majesty's Government's other grants, which we do not consider excessive, to the Arts and Sciences. But we are confident that such a sum would be wisely spent…

This is the trouble, and I hope that the Minister will make it absolutely clear that the first part of the new Clause—with which I disagree—allowing a charge for entrance to museums or art galleries will be implemented in exceptional circumstances and will not be allowed to erode the general principle of a free library service.
I have praised the Minister for the emphasis which the new Clause puts on the educational aspect of museums, but I have a feeling that it has arisen more as a quid pro quo for the non-persistence of some reactionary hon. Members opposite who wanted to levy public assistance charges for the library service. They were talking in an atmosphere that went back to Chadwick's Poor Law—the principle of less eligibilty—which, if my history is correct, dates from 1834. Hon. Members opposite are 130 years out of date, and I cannot see why the Minister needs to give them any sort of quid pro quo. However, I feel that this is the reason for it and, by their deeds, we shall know them. If the Minister and his hon. Friends continue in office, they must resist to the full any attempt to erode the principle of a free museum and library service.
May I be allowed to say one other thing arising from the Rosse Committee's Report. It relates to the second part of the new Clause dealing with the rôle of education. The Rosse Committee made some very strong and intelligent recommendations about school museum services in order to encourage the use of museums at the adult stage. This body, which is not primarily educational in purpose, came to the very good conclusion that interest in museums and art galleries must start in the schools. It made this strong recommendation on the page which I have quoted on which it recommended that there should be assistance for a circulation department for the Science Museum and that there should be considerable assistance for training schemes and for the area councils. This, too, amounts to a fairly considerable sum, £225,000.
What we are saying now about the education functions of museums is not really possible without relatively minor steps being taken in this other respect. Again, I must refer the Minister to a remark which he made in Committee


when he said that the estimate for area museum councils for the current year was £16,000. That is much lower than the figure recommended by the Rosse Committee, which suggested £150,000.
We are faced with quite inadequate financial provision and a possibility that charges may be used to finance what they should never finance. A declaration is necessary from the Minister that his words about encouraging the educational function of museums will be matched purely on the educational side by much greater steps in the development of the school museum services.
On that subject, the Rosse Committee said in paragraph 196:
We strongly recommend the extension of school museum services all over the country. Schools in rural districts, however, cannot make full use of a two-way service. For them, the important feature of the museum service is the loan service…. There are large areas, notably in the North of England and in Scotland, where there is at present neither a museum nor a loan service; and we are in full agreement with Miss Winstanley's view that the extension of loan services all over the country is a particularly urgent need.
There is an exception in County Durham, where we now have a school museum service and where the Bowes Museum plays a prominent part in it. That was one of the things for which I worked hard when I was on the county council, and it is one of the reasons why I stress the point at this juncture.
I conclude with a further paragraph from the Rosse Committee:
It seems to us impossible to over-estimate the importance to future generations of teaching children the use and significance of museum objects, and we urge those local authorities which have not yet developed, or assisted museums in their areas to develop, a school museum service to do so without delay; and especially to provide a loan service in all rural areas.
I hope that the Minister will indicate that he will take action in the Ministry of Education to develop this side, otherwise it makes a mockery of the statement that galleries and museums are to play a vital rôle in education. In other words, it throws back to the local authorities what should not have been left to them in the libraries—the fact of having to finance the whole thing themselves, with practically no assistance from the general grant.

Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) has raised the important point that the museums and art gallery services are part of the education sysem. On looking at the new Clause and at Clause 12 of the Bill, which deals with museums and art galleries, I would say at once that in the Bill the Government have done little to advance and improve the standards of museums and art galleries.
Too often, the general picture is one of neglect, sometimes of the complete absence of museum and art gallery services. I would have hoped that when the occasion arose for the Government to present a Bill which affects museums and art galleries, they would have given us something better than these two Clauses, both of which are permissive. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said that he was pleased to see the inclusion of subsection (2) in the new Clause. It seems to me that hon. Members on both sides welcome that subsection, although one wonders how effective it will be.
There are a number of questions which should be asked about it. It is all very well to say that local authorities
shall take into account the need to secure that the museum or gallery plays its full part in the promotion of education in the area",
but the subsection goes on to say that the local authority
shall have particular regard to the interests of children and students.
Is it the Minister's intention that children and students will in no circumstances be charged for entry to art galleries and museums? Subsection (1) of the new Clause empowers local authorities to make a charge. Subsection (2) recognises that it is important that museums and art galleries should be for the benefit of the educational service and for children and students.
5.45 p.m.
If a local authority decides to impose a charge for admission to its museums or art galleries, will the charge include children and students? If so, will it be a partial or a full charge? Will the local authority be able to charge children and students from its own area, on the one hand, and people from outside its area, on the other? When we have a national system of education, it would be nonsensical to draw arbitrary


distinctions according to where people live.
The Government began with the basic assumption that they wished to preserve the status quo concerning museums and art galleries. I listened with sympathy to some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross). One recognises that there are museums which have a real claim to make a charge of some kind in special circumstances. It is eminently reasonable to allow the authorities which run such services to continue to do so because of those limited and special services.
Apparently, however, to enable that kind of situation to continue for a minority with special services, the Government, instead of drafting detailed provisions to allow those special services to continue, have come forward with a new Clause which will allow all local authorities to make a charge for admission to museums or art galleries maintained by them.
The Minister said that the Government did not intend to encourage local authorities to make a charge, and this may well be the case. My fear is that once this provision goes on to the Statute Book, local authorities will not be concerned with reading what the Minister has said about the Government's intentions. We will, in fact, be giving local authorities power to charge at their own discretion. What made me fear that the gates might open wide was the remark made by an hon. Member opposite that if local authorities find it expensive, presumably because of salaries, to keep museums and art galleries open on a Sunday afternoon, it is entirely reasonable that they should be able to make a charge.
If there is one time during the week when museums and art galleries should be open, it is a Sunday afternoon. If we are to get that kind of argument, local authorities will be able to decide all kinds of special circumstances which many of us who are interested in this part of the educational service would regard as having no validity.
Therefore, while I appreciate the Government's motives in the new Clause, it seems to me that to preserve the privilege of a few local authorities to make charges in special circumstances

the Government would have done much better and served the interests of the educational system more satisfactorily by introducing a Clause to deal with those special circumstances in detail rather than introducing the kind of Clause that they have done today.

Mr. Ede: I regret to see the right hon. Gentleman bringing in this Clause, for I believe it to be thoroughly reactionary and against the tradition of the country. It could be made a vehicle for considerably reducing the cultural opportunities of large numbers of citizens, both young and old. In the nineteenth century this country, by a series of measures, threw open, as wide as the circumstances of the time permitted, access to knowledge, to education, and to all the refining arts, which are helped to be spread by the existence of museums and galleries.
It seems a sad thing that today the Minister in charge of the Bill should be proposing the line which has been criticised, to my mind, so appropriately, by those who have spoken in the debate. I cannot think that it helps the general level of knowledge and culture that this kind of attitude should be adopted by the Government.
I am the more unhappy to see associated with this new Clause the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), whose family, after all, in the nineteenth century did a very great deal towards providing in one way and another for, incidentally, higher education of large sections of the populace.
I sincerely hope that the Minister has not said the last word yet on the Government's attitude towards this matter and that we may get some return to the more liberal attitude of the last century rather than be stuck in the mud in which the Government have managed to get themselves engulfed in the present century. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to find some way of meeting the various points which have been raised by my hon. Friends who have spoken.

Mrs. White: I do not want to come between the Minister and the House, but I think that the very eloquent plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), which, I am


sure, must have impressed hon. Members on both sides of the House, should be reinforced from this Box.
We are very much worried about this new Clause, which has been put in to replace the defunct Clause 13. It was made perfectly clear when, in Committee, we debated Clause 13 that it had been put into the Bill without adequate consideration, for it was withdrawn, and it is a very unusual thing for a Clause to be withdrawn entirely from a Bill at the suggestion of the Minister who introduced the Bill. Therefore, I think that we are entitled to ask, in these unusual parliamentary circumstances, whether adequate consideration has really now been given to this matter.
The difficulty about the Clause for which this new Clause is a substitute was, so we were told by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, that it was believed that it maintained the status quo. The hon. Gentleman said:
However, on further examination and consultation "—
which had not taken place before the Clause was originally drafted—
the status quo has proved to be a good deal more difficult to maintain than we had supposed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 30th April, 1964; c. 474.]
The hon. Gentleman explained the variety of provisions made for different establishments, different museums and art galleries, some of which were dealt with under private legislation; of others it was difficult to know whether or no they were entirely museums, in which case they would probably not be allowed to charge, or possibly partly art galleries, in which case they might be allowed to charge. There were various anomalies.
The way out chosen by the Government is, in effect, to continue the anomalies instead of doing what my right hon. Friend has said: let us make a clean sweep of all this, and as libraries are free, so should museums and art galleries be free. After all, there is really no difference in principle, though there may be some difficulties locally, here and there, and of expediency, but to say that we can charge people to see a picture in York and not in Trafalgar Square seems odd to say the least of it. I do not think that any of us would wish to see this regarded as the thin end of the wedge

whereby great national collections should be subject to charges. I am sure that that was not in the Minister's mind.
We really are concerned about this because we have no guarantee in the new Clause, as it is and as we are discussing it—we have not yet reached the Amendment down to it—that local authorities will put the first interests of the general public first. This is a sort of tax on knowledge, a tax on aesthetic experience. We should, I think, stand up for the principle that the general public have a right to enjoy these collections, if they come under public authorities at all.
If we felt that a local authority was really straining itself to maintain its museum or art gallery, and that it could not manage it without relying on the odd 3d. or 6d., we might possibly have a little sympathy, though even there it might be misplaced, but when we look at the facts we are not at all convinced that those who have the honour to maintain museums or art galleries are really doing all they could.
I am reinforced in this by the Report of the Standing Committee which discussed the matter of rate finance, which is one of the alternatives to making charges. It points out that in England, Wales, and Scotland, 204 boroughs, and 16 large burghs in Scotland, maintain museums. Of these, about half spend less than Id. rate on those museums; 66 spend between Id. and 2d.; 19 between 2d. and 3d.; and of the 14 which spend more than a 3d. rate, Halifax, Norwich, Bath, Brighton, York and Keighley spend up to 6d. All I am suggesting is that if more than half of the authorities which have museums are prepared to spend less than a 1d. rate on those museums I do not think that we should be falling over ourselves to empower them to make charges.
I most emphatically agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley)—I am sorry, in this instance, at least, to part company from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite—that Sunday afternoon is the very time when one should be able to take one's family and children to visit a museum or art gallery, and that the continental system of closing, if need be, on Monday, to meet the needs of the staff, is surely the way to deal with it. I do not think that the Sunday afternoon argument—if I may


call it that—for making charges is at all a strong one.
I think that it is only right to express our very deep concern at what we consider is really a retreat instead of an advance. The Government, having found their original Clause unsatisfactory—we are not quarrelling with them about that, except that they did not take steps to consult and inquire before drafting it—instead of going forward more positively and saying, "Here are all these anomalies; they are more complex than we supposed them to be; the best thing, therefore, is to advance" have, on the contrary, in effect, retreated.
It seems to us that this is a very doubtful provision to put into a Bill one of the purposes of which, after all, is to improve not only the library resources of the country but also the museums and art galleries. We have complained before that museums and art galleries come in at the tag end. It seems that the Clause supports our view that inadequate consideration has been given to the needs of these institutions and that nothing has been promised them by way of adequate subventions from national or local sources. It is for these reasons that these odd amounts—2d., 3d., 6d. and sometimes rather more—are still being collected.
6.0 p.m.
It is an unsatisfactory Clause. It is only proper that we should make clear that we are not happy about it and are delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has put the matter to the House with his usual clarity and distinction.

Mr. Costain: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said he thought this a retrograde step. I do not agree. The right hon. Gentleman did not have the benefit of the discussion that we had in Committee. I support the new Clause, particularly subsection (2), which gives sufficient safeguards for students who want to visit museums. I also welcome the Clause because it has some safeguards for the interests of the ratepayers, interests which the House ought to have very much in mind.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) suggested that this might be a retrograde step in respect of museums. If, on certain occasions, the public were prepared to pay to visit

museums, that should encourage, not discourage, better museums. Whenever museum expenditure arises, there is always someone on the local authority who will ask what they are getting out of it. If it is proved that the public will pay to visit museums, we may get a better museum structure, and derive better educational facilities from it.
We should also bear in mind the increase in the tourist trade. Many tourists coming to this country are used to paying to visit art galleries and museums on the continent, and sometimes they may even judge the quality and status of a museum by the fact that they have to pay to visit it. The fact that an entrance fee has to be paid might even encourage visits by people who do not normally go to museums. Knowing that they can get in for nothing may not encourage them to visit museums.

Mrs. White: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the logic of his argument is that we should charge more for the National Gallery than for any other gallery, because it has the finest collection?

Mr. Costain: That may be so, but the National Gallery is so well known that it is not necessary, though I do not suggest for a moment that it might not get more visitors if it charged.

Sir E. Boyle: If I may speak again by leave of the House—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): To remove any misapprehension, the leave of the House is not required by the right hon. or hon. Member in charge of a Bill.

Sir E. Boyle: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
It is now about an hour and a quarter since the hen. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said that he reluctantly accepted the new Clause, since when the Opposition attitude has been hardening. Perhaps it is time for me to say a few words.
In answer to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), it is important to remember that the Clause does not enshrine a completely new principle. As I said on Second Reading, as the law stands local authorities can charge for admission to their art galleries.
In considering whether the Clause should or should not be read a Second time, we come back to what my hon. Friend and I said in Committee. It seemed to me that there were conclusive reasons for saying that we could not keep the status quo. That left two alternatives. We either had to legislate to take away the right to charge where it already existed, or we had to legislate to give local authorities discretion as to whether to charge or not.
There is the third possibility—in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) I will not call it the third alternative—of trying to list precisely the circumstances in which local galleries and museums should be able to charge, but I think that that would have been the most impracticable of all the possibilities. I also agree, as I said in Committee, that none of us wishes positively to recommend local authorities that there should be charges.
Faced with the two real alternatives, we have, I believe, taken the right course in giving local authorities discretion as to whether to charge or not and by accompanying that discretion with a subsection which speaks clearly about the need of a local authority to secure that its museum or gallery plays its full part in the promotion of education in the area. I think that the new Clause is the first occasion on which we have laid down actually in terms in legislation the part which the museum service plays in the education system. That seems to me to give some added importance to the new Clause.
In answer to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the feasibility and the timing of circularising local authorities on the importance of the museum service. However, I think that he will recognise that circulars have to be well timed and based on existing practice and experience to some extent, and a premature circular is not often of great value. But I agree that the time is coming when we should pool our experience and views on the importance of this service to the schools.
Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member came near to justifying what is sometimes said by Conservatives about drab equality and uniformity.

He overlooked the fact that one cannot have a local museum service evenly spread over the country in the same way as one can have a public library service. The essence of the local museum service is that there will be a variety of local museums in different parts of the counttry. As I said in Committee, some are associated with military history and others with local collections, and the cost of maintaining these museums must vary very much. So it is not unreasonable that there should be less uniformity of practice than in the case of the library service.
My last point relates to the central Government's part in connection with provincial museums and art galleries. What I have to say will not be without interest to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). He will agree that when he made his enquiry in 1956 the amount of the special grant then going through the Victoria and Albert Museum was £1,000, and now it is £50,000. So there has been a change since that time. In addition, there is always the possibility in the exceptional case of a special purchase grant through the Victoria and Albert Museum. I mention this because I was responsible for the one special purchase grant so far given for the Walker Art Gallery. One reason for the special grant, which was criticised at the time by a number of bodies—I had some very rude letters about it from certain circles—was that it went to a local community which had done so much to collect money itself.
I believe that this is the best solution to a difficult problem, and, therefore, I hope that the House will now agree to give the Clause a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, after "charge", to insert:
not exceeding such amount as may be specified in that behalf by the Secretary of State".
This is a continuous debate. I know that we are on Report and that one cannot speak twice without leave. I do not want to go back on the debate we have just had, but I do not think that the Minister's Clause is the best possible solution. It is merely the best solution


we have before us. We seek to improve it with this Amendment, which I am hopeful the right hon. Gentleman will accept.
I am sure that he will not challenge the drafting. He will recognise that the words are taken from his own Bill. He made similar provision when considering exceptions in the case of libraries. I think that the words could be improved upon, but I hope that he will accept the principle of the Amendment and then consider improving the drafting. All that was said in the debate we have just finished supports acceptance of the Amendment.
It is quite clear that we have been in the difficulty of considering a Bill which initially dealt with libraries and not museums. Provision was eventually made in it for museums, which had been incidentally referral to in the Roberts Report, but not sufficient consideration was given to their position. When we encountered this difficulty in Committee upstairs, we were assured by the Government that the steps they had taken to preserve the status quo were effective. Now we have a couple of Clauses that we do not very much like, since we do not want to prejudice those authorities which are making exceptional provision and which also rely, to a greater or lesser degree, on charges.
I emphasise again that if the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Appendix he will see that this is not a difficult matter to deal with. Remarkably few authorities impose charges. By and large, those which do have particular reasons. However, we were faced with this difficulty in Committee, and that was why we allowed the original Clause 13. The number 13 may be somewhat unlucky in this Bill. Indeed, it may be unlucky for the Government. The Government might find themselves just entering their 13th year of office when they are defeated.

Sir E. Boyle: This is not to be found in the Bill, and even in the unhappy and unlikely contingency the hon. Gentleman is considering he is surely mathematically inaccurate.

Mr. Willey: I do not know how authoritatively the right hon. Gentleman is speaking. I was assuming for present purposes that the Government would go into their 13th year. The right hon. Gentleman

is saying that he is allowing a general permissive power but has no intention that it should be exercised generally. If so, he is obliged to accept the Amendment. He has qualified the power by the reference in subsection (2) of the new Clause, but if that is to be an effective qualification it provides a further argument for acceptance of the Amendment.
6.15 p.m.
I know that some local authority associations would say that this would be a paternalistic interference by the Minister, but he himself has followed this course in the case of the public libraries. He said that in their case, if the principle of free entry is breached, the consent of the Minister must be given to the amount to be charged. The same principle surely applies to museums, in view of the general reluctance to extend the provision of charges for museums and galleries. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this responsibility.
The right hon. Gentleman is apparently overtly setting out to extend the provision of charges for museums and art galleries. If that is his intention, he should accept responsibility by accepting the Amendment, which would ensure that no such extension could occur unless he was convinced that there were exceptional circumstances. He should also accept it on the ground that he himself has made a specific qualification—the part which museums and galleries play in the promotion of education.
For all these reasons, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, remembering the circumstances in which he made a similar condition requisite in the case of public libraries. I hope that he will recognise the apprehension—the proper apprehension—about providing this general permissive power. It would allay that apprehension and provide for adequate ministerial responsibility if he accepted the Amendment.

Mr. Boyden: I support the Amendment on two grounds. There has been some consensus of agreement upon two types of charges—the "hooligan" charge and the charge for special circumstances, such as exhibitions. Both these need closely watching. I do not accept the argument, put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central


(Sir B. Stross), that the "hooligan" charge does its job, although I know I have against me experienced curators of museums who say that it does. Careful thought should be given to seeing whether levying charges of this description is the right way to protect museums against people who do not go there for proper purposes. Such charges allowed in this way should be very limited and carefully scrutinised. That is one reason for the Amendment.
The second kind of charge is that for special exhibitions, and this is also something that needs watching over a period, for it is conceivable that the amount of money raised in some places for special exhibitions could distort the whole nature of the museum or art gallery locally. We should be very cautious about extending this principle and very carefully watch the two cases in which strong argument has been put forward for charges.

Sir E. Boyle: The Amendment would enable the Secretary of State to fix a maximum charge for entrance to a museum. I recognise that this is a permissive power, one which he need not exercise if he did not wish to do so. I am not putting a critical point in saying that I am not sure whether the analogy with Clause 8(2) quite holds good. It is surely defensible to prescribe maximum charges for uniform services, such as the reservation of books, and there is no reason why different local authorities should impose different fines on people who fail to return books within the prescribed period.
But there is no such uniformity in the facilities provided by museums, and there is no reason, a priori, why a large museum should not charge rather more than the small one. I imagine that the hon. Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) would not intend that the Secretary of State should attempt to frame general rules governing charges for admission to museums and art galleries. The circumstances of different local museums vary so widely that no general rule about charges for admission could be appropriate to all of them. The circumstances of each museum must be considered individually, and this requires local knowledge both of the museum itself and of the public likely

to use it. As a general principle, this decision is best left to the local authority which alone knows the local circumstances.
However, there is the question raised by the Amendment of whether my right hon. and learned Friend should have, as it were, a reserve power of policing charges. Frankly, I find myself influenced by two opposite considerations, to both of which the House should give some weight. It could fairly be argued that this is a matter for local government and that local authorities should have the power of decision. It is reasonable to assume that an authority which is ready to maintain a local museum will not fix charges for admission so high as to deter people from using it. In general, this is a matter on which it is right to pay a very high regard to what local bodies wish to do.
At the same time, I am conscious of the fact that in subsection (2) of the new Clause we specifically refer to the need to see that the museum or gallery plays its full part in the promotion of education. In other words, we lay down a specific concern for the local authority to have in mind. In those circumstances, there seems to be a more logical case for what I would call a reserve policing power in the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend than if we had no such provision as subsection (2). I recognise that it could be argued that some remedy should be available for people who consider that a local authority has not paid due regard to educational considerations and that in an extreme case my right hon. and learned Friend should have power himself to fix museum charges.
I have given considerable thought to this matter and, on balance, after considering all the arguments—and such contacts as I have had outside have been rather doubtful about and in one case somewhat hostile to the Amendment—I am prepared to consider the matter again in the light of the debate, and on the understanding that the Secretary of State would be expected to use this only as an exceptional power if there really were reason to suppose that an authority was acting unreasonably.
It would be wrong for me to accept the Amendment as it stands, for two reasons. The first is that I am not sure


that what is in Clause 8(2) is the best possible wording for this purpose. Secondly, I would not wish to give an absolute undertaking or commitment until we have had the chance of further consultations on this matter. Subject to those consultations, I can tell the House that it is my own feeling that a reasonable case can be made for the spirit of the Amendment, bearing in mind the special provisions and the special conditions laid down in subsection (2) of the new Clause. With my undertaking to consider the matter before the Bill goes to another place, I hope that the hon. Member will not feel it necessary to pursue the matter further.

Mr. Willey: The House is much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. As I said, I am not altogether satisfied with the language which we have chosen for the Amendment. I thought that as it savoured of language which had previously been used by the right hon. Gentleman it might be more acceptable to him, but I accept at once that there is not an exact parallel between this proposal and the provision in Clause 8(2). However, the circumstances are similar.
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that as a qualification is placed upon the exercise of the local authority's power, expressly to take into account the need to secure that a museum or gallery plays its full part in the promotion of education in the area concerned, there is a residual responsibility on the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is the main consideration which we have had in mind.
I emphasise the other consideration, although I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman accepts it. I fully accept that this would be a difficult matter to determine, because so much would depend on local circumstances, not only on local provision for the museum, but on where the museum was. The right hon. Gentleman should pay closer regard to our anxiety that this power should not be widely used. This is a permissive power, and I think we can rely very largely on the good sense of local authorities. We are not anxious to see the power extended, and for that reason there is an additional factor which the right hon. Gentleman should take into account. It is that, although there is not an exact parallel between the provision

of museums and art galleries and the provision of public libraries, nevertheless we wish to preserve in either case the general principle of free access.
We should recognise that, as with libraries, we are here concerned with preserving the national heritage and that it would be only in exceptional circumstances that a local authority would be expected to make charges. It is largely only in exceptional cases today that these charges are made. While we thank the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance, I hope that he will bear these factors in mind when he is considering an Amendment for another place. In view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(POWER TO ESTABLISH FUND FOR PURCHASE OF EXHIBITS.)

(1) A local authority maintaining a museum or art gallery under section 12 of this Act may establish a fund to be used for the purchase of objects for exhibition in any museum or art gallery for the time being so maintained by the authority.

(2) Where at the time a fund is established by it under this section a local authority maintains under a local Act a fund which it is authorised to use for the purchase of such objects as aforesaid, the Minister of Housing and Local Government may, by order made on the application of the local authority, provide for the amalgamation of the funds.

(3) The provisions of Schedule (Management of funds for purchase of exhibits) to this Act shall apply with respect to the management of a fund established by a local authority under this section.

(4) This section shall not apply to the council of a parish or the council of a borough included in a rural district.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of this new Clause is to allow local authorities to build up a fund from which they will be able from time to time to buy pictures or museum exhibits without financial difficulty—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reminded that a new Clause can be moved at this stage only by the Member who has given notice of it.*

*Note: See col. 197.

Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, very much in my own—I must get this right—fourteenth year in the House for being so ignorant of the proper procedures.
The purpose of the Clause is to empower local authorities to build up a fund from which they will be able from time to time to purchase pictures or museum exhibits without financial difficulty and without having to levy a specific rate for the purpose.
We have had some reference to the Standing Commission Survey which, in paragraph 171, explained that although general powers now existed by which local authorities could accumulate a fund for any kind of capital expenditure, a fund so built up could be used for any purpose at the discretion of the authority. Therefore, if a local authority wishes to set up a fund for a specific purpose, such as the purchase of works of art, it must first obtain power to do so by a local Act of Parliament. Many authorities have obtained such power.
The Standing Commission thought that this power ought to be made general and emphasised the importance of local authorities which provided museums and art galleries building up such funds. A joint board established under Clause 5 will have power to establish an art fund under the Clause, as it is included in the definition of "local authority" in Clause 22. Paragraph 6 of the Schedule makes the necessary adaptations in this provision so as to make it applicable to a joint board.
Local authorities which have established funds for the same or similar purposes under local Acts might find it convenient for these funds to be amalgamated with funds set up under the Clause, and subsection (2) of the new Clause makes it possible for this to be done under the authority of an order of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
6.30 p.m.
The Schedule contains provisions for the management of a fund established under the Clause. I do not think that I need to go into the details. It sets out the maximum contribution, and so on. These limitations are similar to those contained in local Acts save that

these name the actual sum as the maximum balance of the fund.
Paragraph 3 enables the proceeds of the sale of any picture or museum object to be paid into the fund instead of being credited to the county fund or to the general rate in accordance with the 1933 Act. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule authorises the investment of any money in the fund not immediately required in the same way as trustees are authorised to invest funds under the Act of 1961.
The only other thing which I should mention is that this new Clause does not apply to parish councils, as the rateable value of most parishes would not enable a worth-while fund to be established. In any case, their systems of accounting and financial control may not be sufficient for this purpose. I can tell the House that we have taken soundings and the new Clause is acceptable to the Parish Councils' Association.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. He has anticipated the discussion that we shall have on the Schedule.

Sir E. Boyle: I am sorry.

Mr. Willey: There are some points that we should like to raise on the Schedule, but I will not raise them here.
This is something which the House ought to welcome. It is a provision which will be helpful. We are less encouraged by the provisions in the Schedule, but I think that we should congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on taking the opportunity afforded by the Bill to implement a recommendation of the Rosse Report and to provide something which we hope will be a considerable help to local authorities in establishing their collections.

Sir B. Stross: This type of Clause has been wanted for a very long time by those local authorities which wish to establish funds and to save money from time to time until they have sufficient to be able to purchase something quite expensive, should the opportunity arise. They have never previously been able to do so without the passing of a private Act of Parliament. Everyone who is knowledgeable about this kind of work may be very glad that now a blanket


power has been given to all local authorities to establish funds. This will allow them to increase and invest the money so that they will not have to come cap in hand asking for permission every time they wish to acquire an object which is rather more than expensive than those which they usually purchase.
I should, therefore, like to support the Clause.

Mr. Boyden: I support what has already been said. This represents a breach of the principle, for which the right hon. Gentleman took some credit, of making special grants for special occasions. While I applaud that occasion to which he referred as a very good piece of government, the general principle of rescuing local museums which wish to buy something valuable or expensive is bad. All too often national collections have had to do this sort of thing by giving legal permission for local authorities to build up a special fund so that they may deal with expensive items which come their way.
This is important in the stages of moving up a museum or art gallery, either when there is a change of policy or a line of policy is strengthened. A museum or gallery may wish to purchase a group of paintings for policy reasons and may not be able to do so without such a fund. Several works of this description may come on to the market. If the museum committee has to go constantly to the rating and finance committee it is a very debilitating process, and often the museum committee does not get what it wants. Purchases may be made erratically. Three or four objects may be purchased over a short period and then there may be a lapse of two or three years, or even longer, before the next purchase.
With such a fund a museum may be able to build up a collection more economically by buying quickly, and thereby stop works of art from going abroad, and follow a sensible buying policy. The development of a museum or art gallery—this is another argument in favour of the Clause—does not always coincide with the nature of economic policy. It does not always go with a stop-go economy. The cycle of museum purchases may go opposite to that policy. We are promised that the

stop and go policy is a thing of the past. We hope that it is and that the right hon. Gentleman may claim some credit for modernising this sphere and preventing a stop-go policy.

Mr. O'Malley: I welcome the Clause for the reasons which have been mentioned by my hon. Friends and which it is not my intention to repeat. Subsection (1) states that
A local authority maintaining a museum or art gallery under section 12 …may establish a fund
for the purpose which we have been discussing. If a local authority has not a museum or art gallery, but is considering establishing one, will it have such a power? If it had, that would be a positive incentive for the authority to consider setting up a museum. It would be able to acquire some kind of reserve before making the initial purchases.

Sir E. Boyle: I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman is "No", but I will write to him further on the point.

Mr. O'Malley: I shall be interested to hear from the right hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for his promise. If the answer is "No", I wish to ask him to consider making provision in another place to allow such authorities to set up this kind of fund.

Mrs. White: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) for having raised that point. It is quite clear that, if we are to have further developments in this service, what he has said is of great importance. If such local authorities cannot have a fund, they will have to buy on hire purchase. Can the Minister also enlighten us en another matter which I find not entirely clear? According to the Clause a local authority which maintains a museum or art gallery may establish a fund, and so forth. But the Report of the Standing Commission on Museums and Art Galleries states, in paragraph 170, that the great majority of local authorities which maintain museums are boroughs and that very few counties maintain them. There are ratable exceptions, such as Durham County Council, with the Bowes Museum. There is also mentioned London County Council's responsibility for Kenwood, with a remarkably fine


collection of pictures, but, generally, museums and art galleries are largely maintained by boroughs.
Normally, it would be the maintaining authority which would want a fund of this sort, but I presume that there would be nothing which would make it in any way difficult for a county which does not maintain its own museum or art gallery to contribute to the fund of a body which does so. We are not discussing the Schedule at the moment, but I might perhaps be allowed to put this in the mind of the Minister. Is there any difficulty, under the Schedule, which is extraordinarily tightly drawn in this matter, for an authority which is not itself maintaining a museum or art gallery but which wishes to contribute to another authority, for example, a county borough in its area which does maintain one?
We want to be sure that in legislating in this way we are not putting a difficulty in the way of an authority which does not maintain a museum, but would like to assist another authority to do so. This is a point which is rather similar in character to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, who is also anxious that these powers, if conferred, should be fully used. We are probably suffering from hasty draftsmanship of this part of the Bill. We are in difficulties over Clauses which deal with museums and art galleries because they have not been so fully digested as the part which deals with public libraries. That part has been before the bodies concerned in one way or another for a considerable time and there had been considerable consultation, but about this part of the Bill we feel uncomfortable.
In the past, the whole position about capital funds has been unsatisfactory. At one time special legislation had to be used to establish one. We are not in the least objecting to the Minister having powers in this Clause to simplify matters. On the contrary, we are anxious to help him and we entirely agree that it is very proper that funds should be established and nourished.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) rightly said, unless local authorities have money

available they cannot purchase at the moment when the market is favourable. All that has been said about the greater national museums and galleries mutatis mutandis applies to the smaller ones. If they can have money in the "kitty" when something is likely to come on the market, or when a lively curator knows of a collector in the neighbourhood who, with a little persuasion, might be prevailed on to part with one of his treasures at a reasonable price, the position is made much easier. Perhaps with the help of one or two wealthy industrialists and of one of the trusts it would be possible to start the whole process more satisfactorily.
We are happy about the intentions of the Clause and think that it will help the lively and enterprising curator of a museum or gallery to put persuasion on his local authority to build up resources for the future, but we are not quite satisfied that the Clause and the Schedule as they stand have been fully enough considered. I hope, therefore, that we shall have a litle more from the Minister about this matter to make certain that these purely practical difficulties—which are not matters of principle—have been thought out and that there is a complete answer or, if not, that they will be further considered and something done in another place to deal with them.

6.45 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: In answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), I think that the point she put about the possibility of a local authority building up a fund, not to assist as it were its own museum but someone else's museum, goes a long way beyond subsection (1) of the proposed new Clause, indeed, further than anything proposed in the Standing Commission's Report.
I feel in a difficulty here, because we are not discussing an Amendment to subsection (1) of the new Clause and, therefore, we must base ourselves on the Clause as we have it. This proposal would extend the principle of the Clause a good deal. While I should not rule out discussion of this matter in another place, and will bear in mind the point that the hon. Lady has raised, I should not like to give any undertaking this afternoon about what seems a considerable extension of the principle behind the Clause.

Mrs. White: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not entirely grasp the argument I put forward. It was not entirely whether an authority could set up a fund, but whether it could contribute to someone else's fund. Could another local authority make a subscription on the regular basis to another purchasing fund or would that be ultra vires? If it were within that authority's powers, would it be circumscribed by the Schedule?

Sir E. Boyle: At first sight I should say that it would be although I am ready to be corrected on that point. I should say that it would be going quite a long way beyond subsection (1) of the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—MINISTER OF EDUCATION TO SUPERINTEND LIBRARY SERVICE.

Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7 to leave out from "the" to "'to" in line 8 and to insert "Secretary of State".
The effect of this Amendment is to substitute "Secretary of State for Education and Science", for" the Minister of Education "and" the Department of Education and Science "for" the Ministry of Education." There are 41 identical Amendments to the rest of the Bill and, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House if these 41 were taken en bloc with this Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very sensible suggestion, but it is a little difficult to manage under our rules. The present position is that the right hon. Gentleman is moving Amendment No. 1. If it be the wish of the House I would allow that and the other Amendments leaving out the word "Minister" and inserting the words "Secretary of State" to be discussed together.

Mr. Willey: As we are covering a very large number of Amendments, there are one or two questions I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman. We are not very enthusiastic about these Amendments. We were impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's interest in libraries, his promotion of the Bill and

his conduct in discussions in Standing Committee, and we shall be sorry to see him lose personal responsibility now.
Why were these Amendments not moved in Standing Committee? The right hon. Gentleman's title was translated to the new title while we were in Committee and I should have thought we could have dealt with the Amendments then. I mention this because the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State was not present at our meetings of the Standing Committee. If we are to make him responsible for libraries we ought to have had him with us in Committee. I take the view in matters of government that there should be personal responsibility. There is far too much obscuring of personal responsibility nowadays.
The present Government are remarkably lucky in that Ministers have escaped accepting full responsibility for their Departments. If it was known that we were to have these Amendments, the Secretary of State himself should have made conventional arrangements. He attended once or twice here today, but I think that was because he is interested in the subsequent business. If the Secretary of State is to have these responsibilities, he should have accepted them during the course of the discussion of the Bill in Committee.
Other points I raise are of constitutional importance and follow the point I have made about personal responsibility. We know quite well that if we insert these words the phrase will be subject to the Interpretation Clause and, therefore, "Secretary of State" can mean any Secretary of State.

Mr. Ede: There is only one Secretary of State.

Mr. Willey: My right hon. Friend the Member for south Shields (Mr. Ede) has expressed this in the correct form; there is only one Secretary of State.
It is time we made it clear that we are here concerned with an individual responsibility for government. It is unrealistic now to make this collective responsibility as though no individual Minister were presently accountable to the House. I hope that the Government will consider designating the particular Minister and not seek to avoid this personal designation of responsibility by


referring to "Secretary of State" and relying on the Interpretation Clause.
The third point is of considerable importance. We do not know—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows—up to the passage of the Bill, if the right hon. Gentleman remains in office, who will be personally responsible for libraries. The House of Commons does not know what the division of responsibility within the enormous Department of Education and Science will be. This is a constitutional matter which is of concern to us. The division of responsibility is something in which we are interested and about which we ought to be informed. If we are concerned with the machinery of government, we do not want this again to be obscured by the Secretary of State being an overlord and having overall responsibility, if we know quite well that by the constitution of the Department and by the fact that in this case we have a Minister who is a Cabinet Minister there is within the Department particular personal Ministerial responsibility.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can deal with these three points: first, explain why the Standing Committee could not have had the attendance of the Secretary of State if it is his responsibility for libraries; secondly, whether the time has not come when we ought to reconsider this general Ministerial responsibility designated by a Secretary of State; and, thirdly, when we get a development such as the new Department of Education and Science, whether the House of Commons should not have some say in and some knowledge of the personal Ministerial responsibility carried within that Department.
When we had the debate on the Ministerial responsibility within the Department of Education and Science, we had two conflicting accounts of how the Ministerial responsibility was deployed. Both the Secretary of State and the right hon. Gentleman spoke in that debate, but they did not speak with the same voice; there was a difference of emphasis by them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us before we depart from this Amendment what the position within the Department will be and which of the proliferation of Ministers there will be the Minister who will have within his personal responsibility the public libraries, museums and art galleries.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has raised a most important constitutional point. The theory of the constitution is that there is one Secretary of State. In my day, he was liable to be split into seven or eight separate persons. I do not know how many Secretaries of State there are now, but one of the anomalies is that no matter how many there are—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too many."]—they may each act for any other person in the Government who is called a Secretary of State if that term meets Ministerial convenience.
It is not a good thing to have too many people who can be called in in emergencies, whether real or imaginary, to act and to give a decision. I hope that this practice of creating Secretaries of State and giving individual Ministers who have not previously held the title, the title of Secretary of State will be more sparingly used in the future than it has been during the past few months. If the Minister in charge of education and science is made a Secretary of State and the Home Secretary does not happen to be available when it is essential to reach a decision with regard to a recommendation of the Royal prerogative, the Minister of Education and Science could, if it suited the convenience of the Government, be asked to consider that matter.
There are, of course, other things besides recommendations with regard to the prerogative which only a Secretary of State can deal with. If the law says that a Secretary of State is required for a certain purpose, not even the Prime Minister can take the action which has been assigned to the Secretary of State. That, I believe, is sound constitutional doctrine and it makes it desirable that the number of people who shall be armed with these powers shall not be extended beyond the number that is absolutely necessary.
I think that for education and science it would be better if we had a Minister of Education for education and science rather than we should have a Secretary of State acting as the Minister for Education and Science and capable of acting when required for any other Secretary of State who may be too busy to give attention to the matter that is generally understood to be referred to him. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman


will contest the constitutional position as I have mentioned it. I protest against the multiplication of people with the title of Secretary of State who can act for any other person enjoying the same description.
I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be able to discharge all the offices of a Secretary of Slate, but we should be assured, as far as we can be, that where definite assignments appear to have been made they should exist and that only in the most exceptional circumstances should a Secretary of State understood to be for one Department act in respect of any other Department. It is a pity that so large a constitutional issue as this should be raised, as it were, more or less by accident so far as the House is concerned, on this Bill.
If I am given sufficient assurances that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will have a very limited power to action in other Departments, I shall be satisfied, but I think that it is a great pity that the matter has not been more clearly thought out so that we could have a pronouncement, if possible by the Prime Minister, on what is a most important constitutional issue.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Perhaps a Scottish Member may intervene in the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has raised a very interesting matter, because it is possible that the change of title from Minister to Secretary of State for Education and Science means that the Secretary of State for Scotland may become responsible for the English and Welsh Library systems.

Mr. Ede: He becomes responsible for foreign policy if the Foreign Secretary is not available.

Mr. Willis: He has that responsibility at the moment, and I understand that he has had it for some time. But we are to add to the duties of Secretary of State for Scotland those, if necessary, of becoming responsible for the public libraries and museums in England and Wales. This is a strange line for English Members to take, and it is a bit of an imposition on Scotland. The main complaint in Scotland is that the Secretary of Slate for Scotland has already

far too much to do—so much that he has not time to attend to his multifarious duties with that assiduity which we expect of him. Now we are to add to his duties.
This ought to be questioned closely. It is not for me to speak on behalf of English Members; it is up to English Members to do so, and if they are prepared to have the Secretary of State responsible for their libraries and public museums, I will not quarrel with them from that point of view. But as a Scottish Member it seems to me to be rather unfair that these additional duties are placed upon a Minister who already has far too much to do and who is unable to accept any additional duties of this character in respect of England and Wales.
Has the Minister discussed this matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland? What discussions have taken place with him? Am I to understand that discussions have taken place? If so, am I to understand that the Secretary of State has expressed his willingness to accept this responsibility? Or have no discussions taken place? If not, we ought to know why. We ought to have an answer to these questions, one way or the other.
As a Scottish Member, I should like to know what is the reaction of the Secretary of State for Scotland to this proposal. Has he welcomed it? Is he prepared to accept the extra duties which might fall on him as a result of the Amendment? The Minister should give us some information about his relations with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the amount of consultation which took place when these Amendments were being framed.

Mr. F. Blackburn: It is a strange anomaly for the Secretary of State for Scotland to come into the Bill, since the Bill does not apply to Scotland. But I am worried about the nature of these Amendments, which simply refer to the "Secretary of State". We have many Secretaries of State, but there is nothing to indicate that it means the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
The Bill as it stands, explains what the Minister means in the interpretation Clause—
'the Minister' means the Minister of Education".


By one of the Amendments which we are discussing, that is to be deleted, and there is no interpretation as to which Secretary of State it is. The Committee should not be asked to pass such imprecise wording. I wonder what the Minister has to say about it.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and I agree entirely with what they said. On this very important constitutional issue we must fix the responsibility. Hitherto, in following the progress of the Bill, perhaps in my innocence, I have thought that I could fairly place responsibility on the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education and Science. This is a matter of great importance to me, because my attendance this afternoon is primarily in connection with Clause 6 on which I, and I am sure some of my hon. Friends, have some important questions to put to the Minister.
But we want to know whether we are wasting our time in putting those questions to him or whether we should put them to his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State for Education and Science. Will he comment on this? If he answer in the affirmative, we may ask why his right hon. Friend was not in attendance during the Committee stage and why we have not seem him until the last hour or two on Report.

Mr. Blackburn: My hon. Friend is assuming that "Secretary of State" means Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Duffy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that I am assuming that that is what the title means. Is it an omnibus title, or does it mean what I have assumed it to mean?

Mr. William Ross: I have been intrigued by the changes made in the Bill. I read the Bill when it first came out and saw that it had nothing to do with Scotland. This was clear. It stated in the long title that its purpose was to
Place public library service provided by local authorities in England and Wales under the superintendence of the Minister of Education".

In the main body of the Bill we had references to the Minister and in Clause 22 that was defined—
'the Minister' means Minister for Education".
Then one day we had an announcement of a complete overhaul in relation to education and higher education. May I remind my hon. Friends who seem to think that Scotland could not be affected by the Bill that those changes affected Scotland? The Minister of Education was wiped out, and we had the Lord President of the Council becoming Secretary of State for Education and Science. His duties included higher education and the universities—not just the universities in England and Wales but also the universities in Scotland. They included also the training colleges for teachers, among them the training colleges in Scotland.
As far as I can understand from the explanations given, the development of the public library service in England and Wales will be put under the Secretary of State. We have talked glibly of a Secretary of State, but the correct constitutional position has been laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The one Secretary of State we tend to talk about is the Secretary of State for Scotland, but that is only one form of this multi-bodied being, the Secretary of State.
Let us forget the formula, the fiction and the shadows, and get down to the substance. The Departmental responsibility for public libraries now passes to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State for Education and Science. I question whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has time to do this. If he accepts further responsibility, how will Scotland fare, because he has assumed responsibilities for Scottish universities? Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no connection with Scottish schools, he will be responsible for the training of teachers in Scotland. Only a Scots Etonian could have thought that one up.
I appreciate the difficulties of the Minister of State. When he addressed the National Union of Students, he confessed his difficulties because none of the Ministers in charge of education had gone through the State university system.


The same applies to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Prime Minister, who has organised all this. I cannot be surprised if the Prime Minister has glibly passed on this new job to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and assumed that nothing matters.
Who is to do it? We were told that there were to be two Departments. One was to be for higher education. The other was to be for the recognised public education system, for which the present nominated Minister is in another place. The more one delves into this the more unsatisfactory it becomes. The man who is titular head will not be doing it, because he has far too much to do.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should now appoint a Minister for Libraries? If the Labour Party wins the General Election, which is very doubtful, will it appoint a Minister for Libraries? We now have a Secretary of State, a Minister of State and an Under-Secretary in this House. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we are inadequately staffed with Ministers to deal with the Bill when it becomes an Act and with the public library service?

Mr. Ross: I would dearly love to give the hon. Gentleman a potted version of our policy on education, higher education and those other aspects of local Government services which fringe upon that subject. However, if I did so, I am sure that I should be ruled out of order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, under the Labour Government, the Minister in charge of public education will be in this House and not in another place. I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that the titular head will not have all the multifarious duties of sport, science, pig disease and the rest of it that are the responsibility of the present Secretary of State. It will not be a case of "Hogg in the fog" with us. It will be someone who is seen to be responsible. He will be responsible in this House and will have definite and specified duties.
My concern is with the whole mechanics of the change. I am also concerned about the ability of the Minister designated in this vague way to carry out all his duties. The whole thing is getting out of hand. We shall probably get

assurances from a Minister who himself will have no responsibility for this. Is not the Minister in charge of the Bill to be in charge of higher education? Is it the Department for which he is answering, or is he answering for another less senior Minister who is coming under the senior Minister—the Secretary of State—who himself has taken no part in the proceedings on the Bill? This is highly unsatisfactory, both from the point of view of the way the House is being treated and from the point of view of the House legislating in this way.
7.15 p.m.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to say whether this is the most specific way in which it could be written into the Bill. Does "Secretary of State" mean the Secretary of State presently responsible for Education and Science, Sport, and all the rest of it? If that is so, is the Minister of State satisfied that this is the right way to do it? It may well be that some of my hon. Friends who hitherto thought that it might be right to transfer this function to the Minister of Education may now think that it would be better to leave it to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
All these matters arise from the changes which have been made in the duties which now rest on the Secretary of State who is being nominated, or who we understand is being nominated, although the term embraces him rather than specifies him. If it is to be the Secretary of State for Education and Science, can we have an assurance that his other duties will be properly carried out? In our part of the world, we are very concerned about this interference with Scottish universities. We are appalled at the suggestion that a man who has no responsibility for Scottish education should assume responsibility for the training of teachers. We are even more worried when he is given responsibilities additionally for the development of the public library service in England and Wales. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) made special reference to Scotland. It may well be that an Amendment will be tabled in another place to give the same Minister responsibility—

Mr. Blackburn: All I said was that it would be an anomaly if "Secretary of State" meant the Secretary of State for Scotland, since Clause 23 provides that the Act shall not extend to Scotland.

Mr. Ross: As we have this assumption of powers over education in Scotland by this newly nominated Minister, I should not be at all surprised if this Government amended Clause 23 so as to give the Secretary of State for Education and Science the power to deal with the development of the library service in Scotland. That provision might even be made in a Private Member's Bill, which would cause concern to my hon. Friend.
I sincerely hope that these fears will be allayed by the speech we shall eventually hear from the Minister who I presume is in charge of the Bill. Hitherto, he has taken an interest in the Bill. We should have liked to have seen the person who is to be in charge of the service showing the same interest.

Sir E. Boyle: May I reply to one or two points which have been raised. I do this also in the interests of enabling the hon. Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) and the House to get on to the discussion of Clause 6 at a reasonable hour, because the hon. Member rightly regards that Clause as very important.
Debates between the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and myself usually take place at a very different hour. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has learned that there are Secretaries of State beyond the Secretary of State for Scotland, though, as I shall show the hon. Gentleman, he is not quite so well informed about the present set-up in the Department of Education.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) asked me three specific questions. He asked, first, why the Government had not tabled these Amendments in Committee. The answer is that we had three sittings of the Committee in March. We were in the middle of dealing with Clause 6 in Committee when the ministerial changeover took place, and it seemed more appropriate to make all the changes on Report rather than to make some changes in Committee to Clauses subsequent to Clause 6 and

then have to make a new batch of changes on Report.
The hon. Gentleman asked me, secondly, why the Secretary of State for Education and Science is not specified. The answer is that, although there are a number of Secretaries of State, each presiding over separate Departments, the office of Secretary of State is, in constitutional theory, one single office. I can assure the House that this does not mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland proposes to add public libraries in England and Wales to his other responsibilities.

Mr. Willis: In which case should not that be written into the Bill? Should it not be defined that "Secretary of State" means the Secretary of State for Education and Science?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member will find that, by common form, the Secretary of State for a separate Department is not specified by name.

Mr. Willis: He is in Scottish legislation.

Sir E. Boyle: In accordance with normal practice, he is not in this Bill.

Mr. Willey: What are the precedents for the exceptions? In which cases is the Secretary of State specifically designated?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot answer that without notice. I am assured that not specifying my right hon. and learned Friend is in accordance with normal practice.
The third question was what arrangements we will be making in regard to ministerial arrangements. I can inform the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that we have one Department and not two. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is alone responsible as a departmental Minister to this House. It is quite a common practice, during the passage of a Bill, for someone who is not actually the Minister in charge of the Department to be in charge of the Bill.
From the point of view of commonsense it would have seemed rather odd if, in the middle of Clause 6, someone were to have taken the place of the Minister who had been in charge of the Bill. There is no intention of making this division of


responsibility too formal though it is true—and it has been announced—that, in general, I shall myself be associated primarily with the unit of the Department dealing With higher education, while my noble Friend Lord Newton will be associated primarily with schools and the further education system. There is no formal distribution of responsibility here and I am ready to say, for there is no need to make any mystery about this, that it is my right hon. and learned Friend's intention, for the remainder of this Parliament at any rate, on matters to do with the public library service and the Bill we are discussing, that these will be handled, from the day-to-day Parliamentary point of view or in correspondence with hon. Members, by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary and myself.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, in page 31, line 8, to leave out "development" and to insert "improvement".
This Amendment is designed to meet a point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and others at a very early stage in our proceedings, before any question arose of changes in Ministerial responsibility. The whole purpose of the Bill is that the public library service should be made better. The Amendment specifies "improvement" for "development" and requires the Secretary of State to promote the improvement of the service. It will take a skilful linguistic philosopher to devote a complete lecture to the difference between "development" and "improvement", but I am prepared to agree that "improvement" is the better of the two.

Mr. Willey: I rise merely to thank the right hon. Gentleman, to remind him that this was the first Amendment which my hon. Friends and I moved to the Bill and to agree that it represents an improvement. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to discuss the advantages of "improvement" as against "development" I would be prepared to discuss it with him. We pointed out in Committee that "development" was a neutral connotation nowadays. I am satisfied that the word "improvement" is an improvement and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for inserting it.

Mr. K. Lewis: This is really a distinction without a difference, if I may say so. I do not know whether he thought it was an improvement or a development when my right hon. Friend found that the present Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State for Education and Science was created overlord over my right hon. Friend's Department. I should have thought that it was a development; and I think that that upsets nobody.
It would seem that one can always improve something when one says that one will develop it. I am doubtful whether it follows that one can develop something when one says one will improve it. My view is that the library service generally is a good one, although it may need expansion and improvement in certain cases, with some development. I doubt whether there are many councils which run library services which would not be regarded as at least quite good and, I repeat, this is really a distinction without a difference.

Mr. Boyden: It is possible to develop bad habits and usually the phrase used for curing them is "improve the situation". It is generally thought that by doing that one will cure the bad habit in question. There may be some substance in that.
I welcome the Amendment, which was initiated by my hon. Friends. Although, in Committee, we spent a considerable time discussing public libraries and their improvement, we did not in anything like the same detail go into Chapter II of the Working Party's Report, which specfied what the improvements should be. We discussed one or two of those improvements, but we did not discuss the whole range. It will be remembered that the Working Party gave six ways in which the service could be improved. We have discussed two but have omitted four and I hope that hon. Members will not think me tedious if I quote some words from the Report and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. They will be in order only if they would be covered by the word "improvement" as opposed to the word "development".

Mr. Boyden: I should have thought that it would be in order, when discussing the development of the Bill, along with


its improvement, to remember that a considerable number of hon. Members opposite were opposed to the provision of cheap public fiction. They regarded it as something that should not be in the library service.
One of the recommendations of the Working Party specifically referred to this point. Its Report stated, for example:
The public library service can help to ensure that the heavy public and private expenditure on education and training is productive not only in economic terms but also in terms of a human happiness. It can also in large measure fill in the gaps in awareness of those people whose education and training has necessarily been of a specialised nature.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I still do not follow the hon. Member. Is he urging that "development" should not be left out or that "improvement" should not be inserted? These are the issues.

Mr. Boyden: No, Sir. I am suggesting that it is an improvement in the library service to maintain fictional books and to develop them. This is one of the things which has been pushed aside. It should be developed and improved as something which needs our attention. I was trying to show, and I should have thought that this would be in order, that the word "improvement" is an improvement over "development". I therefore support the Amendment and am pointing out how it has a bearing on the Report of the Working Party.
The other specific improvement to which we referred in Standing Committee was the provision of material for children and young adults. We glanced at this matter, but did not consider it in detail. The Working Party pointed out that steps should be taken by libraries to help the reader to find books suited to his or her interests, ensure that the right books are available and that the library is kept up to date. This is a question of improvement and I mention these facts to show how important it is to use the word "improvement" rather than "development".
A great deal of thought and a great deal of technical ability might be applied to this. As I say, it was rather disappointing that we did not discuss it in any detail at all in Committee. In the same way, we did not discuss the reference and information services or the

provision of books for students, although I hope that we shall be able to do so when we come to a later Amendment.
What I really wanted to stress was that although we assumed that the whole purpose of the Bill was to improve the library service, we rarely ever got down to the detailed recommendations of the Working Party and Robbins Reports.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 15, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Clause 2.—(NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCILS.)

Amendment made: In page 1, line 20, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, after "provision", to insert "or use".
The purpose of the Amendment is to meet a point put in the Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson), and supported by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). They pointed out that the Clause refers to provision only and that it might be thought that it did not include use. It is certainly my right hon. Friend's intention that the National Advisory Councils should have the duty of advising the Secretary of State on matters connected with the encouragement of the use, as well as the provision, of public library facilities. I therefore suggest that this will be thought to be a useful Amendment.

Mr. Willey: I thank the Joint Under-Secretary on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson), who is at present abroad, I think—probably on Council of Europe business. I can understand why the hon. Gentleman has at last intervened, because when we discussed in Committee the Amendment on which we are told the present Amendment is based, his right hon. Friend said:
… frankly, I should not like to encourage the Committee to think that I am likely to put down an Amendment on this point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E. 17th March, 1964; c. 47.]


I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has supported this Amendment.
This is not quite the Amendment we discussed in the Standing Committee. That Amendment sought to insert the words "and the encouragement of their use". It referred to facilities. I therefore put it to the Under-Secretary that this present Amendment, which obviously extends the Bill in the direction we want it, includes the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South in support of his Amendment. In other words, if we accept this Amendment, can we assume that it is wide enough to cover not only use in the narrow sense, but encouragement of the use of the library service? It was the general wish in Committee that that should be so.
It is important that we should get this right, because we are now considering the National Advisory Councils which will play a very important part in promoting the improvement of the library service. The Bill would certainly have been too narrow if the interest of the National Advisory Councils had been confined to the provision of library facilities. We are now considering an Amendment which will make it clear that their interest will not only concern the provision of facilities but the use of those facilities. Does "use" include steps taken to encourage that use and to promote the better use of the library service?

Mr. Chataway: I give the hon. Member the categorical assurance that it does.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boyden: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, after "facilities", to insert:
including facilities for the assistance of students".
The purpose of this Amendment is to bring within the terms of reference of the National Advisory Councils in England and Wales the service for students, including facilities for their assistance. It is very timely to put in this provision now, because the whole library service in higher education and for students is undergoing reconstruction. The universities have now realised that university libraries are far from adequate, and the Joint Under-Secretary and his Department have been

looking seriously at the provision of libraries and library facilities in the training colleges. Most of us would be very critical of the provision of libraries in most of the technical colleges and in the colleges of further education.
Now that these problems are in the public mind and the departmental mind and great thought is being given to them, it is highly appropriate that this service should take cognisance of what is going on and take steps to see that the development of the public library service goes side by side with that in higher education. It is not just a matter of devoting money for the provision of books for students in public libraries, but of developing those points in the public library service that will be particularly helpful to students without overlapping their own provision in university and training college libraries.
One thing about which the Library Association is very concerned is that throughout the country teaching staff and students are making more and more use of background material which they can get more easily in public libraries and which has more public interest than if it were in their own libraries. The Association gives as examples atomic energy publications, Government reports and United Nations documents. Whereas, in the training college library, it might be argued that it could not spend much money on United Nations documents, there should be a good service in the public library to which the training colleg student can go
We argued in Committee that this should be a matter for special Government grant. We cannot pursue that subject now, but if public grant cannot be made to build up certain public libraries in this respect, at least the Council that is advising the Minister in this way should take note of it and, in due course, perhaps the Government might be led to making financial provision as well as the actual provision of books.
A second need is the need for students to use the public library during vacations. Students, can borrow from their own university or training college library but cannot bring away anything like the number of books they require. Therefore, a certain number of public libraries should, when they are likely


to be extensively used by students in vacations, pay special attention to the need to have students' books available to meet this particular demand, very often at a time when the demand from their own readers is not quite so heavy.
The third requirement is the actual sitting space in libraries, particularly in places where there are great concentrations of students. This problem is particularly acute in the London boroughs. The National Advisory Councils must not only survey those places where there are university and training college students whom it is possible to locate by the site of the college or university, but must also take some note of overseas and private students who, in increasing numbers in London, Birmingham and some of the other great centres, are using the public library service. We go to some trouble in our technical assistance for students overseas to provide places in technical colleges for them. That has been a considerable and welcome development over the last few years. We have not applied our minds to anything like the same extent to the provision of extra mural facilities in the public library service. There are many other things which need to be done, but these are some of the major works which the public library service needs to develop to assist students, and these are the things to which the Councils could apply their minds.
There is no question that there will be a great increase in the demand on library services because of the expansion of higher education, and in the library service itself the more people with education the more the system will be used. It seems to me therefore that there is quite likely to be a development of quantity which will affect the quality of provisions in the libraries. Realisation of the deficiencies in the provision of books in higher education is belated and it is significant that the Robbins Report contained only a rather inconsequential sentence about libraries which said that a library in a big university was likely to be more efficient in terms of money than one in a small university. This was not a very studied comment. It revealed the way in which in the last 10 to 15 years we have not given proper attention to the provision of books in higher education.
One of the odd features about the provision of books in the universities is that the better the library in the university the more the university tends to spend on books. Oxford University, which has 3 million books, spends £41 per student. Exeter University, which has only 127,000 books, manages to spend only £18 per head. In other words, the better the library the better it gets. This is a characteristic which the public library service should watch in relation to students, and I hope that this is the sort of problem to which the Advisory Councils will give attention. I hope very much, therefore, that the Government will accept this Amendment and this direction to the Councils.

Sir B. Stross: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) will agree that not only do we need in "facilities for the assistance of students" more books and better space and accommodation, but also an adequate supply of trained staff who can advise the students.

Mr. Boyden: Mr. Boydenindicated assent.

Sir B. Stross: I knew that my hon. Friend would agree.
I am disturbed about something which is happening in some parts of the country. Here we are debating a Bill soon to be enacted and yet at the same time advice is being given to local authorities by a private organisation and method body on how they can prune their expenditure and cut down staff in the library service. I am disturbed to have to admit that this has happened recently in Stoke-on-Trent. It is a serious matter. The city is not rich and the rates are a burden on the people.
The number of staff available in the library service is one to about 4,700 people. This is not very good. The recommendations are that ideally the ratio should be about one to 2,500 and, therefore, Stoke-on-Trent is already not very well off in the provision that it makes. The matter has been made worse by the fact that we have a remarkable new type of university on our doorstep in Keele University. The very type of service for which my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland asks should be available to it.
7.45 p.m.
Quite apart from that, to find that it is possible for a private organisation, which takes a large fee for the advice that it gives and in giving that advice employs a staff which has no knowledge whatsoever of the library service, should persuade a great local authority that by natural wastage it can diminish its library staff by six, makes me ready to weep. I have to admit that this has happened against the best advice of many members of the local libraries committee. The matter went through the council and I have to ask the Under-Secretary what he and his right hon. Friend propose to do about cases of this kind.
We have the Minister advising certain standards and a private firm of so-called consultants taking a fee for giving exactly contrary advice, and able speciously to show with its advice will save money and achieve certain ends, whilst damaging the library service in the process. I know that we have just passed a new Clause 1 which enables inquiries to be made, and I know that the Under-Secretary knows about this case. Will he take steps to remind the local authority in Stoke-on-Trent that what has happened is against the best interests of students and of citizens generally and advise the authority to reconsider the whole matter? If the hon. Gentleman will do that, I shall be happy and he and his right hon. Friend will be doing no more than their duty.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I should like to leave the point raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stress) and return to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) in moving the Amendment. The more I think about the Amendment the less I feel in favour of its inclusion. We are now discussing the subjects upon which the two National Advisory Councils are to advise the Secretary of State. The Bill as drafted states that that advice shall be upon such matters connected with the provision and use of library facilities as the councils think fit. Presumably it is a corollary of that statement that the Minister will pay attention to their advice and act upon it if action is called for and is within the powers granted to him by the Bill.
The Bill, however, deals with libraries which are financed wholly by the ratepayer except in so far as certain Amendments

and certain Clauses permit money to be obtained by means of fines and by lending certain articles. In other words, we are dealing here with a rate-financed service. It seems to be a little hard upon the ratepayer to suggest that he should be responsible for securing the provision of adequate library facilities for all the students who may happen to be within the borough or city where he lives.
The ratepayer already sees the universities not paying full rates. He knows perfectly well that large areas which might be put to rate-producing uses are used, very rightly, properly and desirably, for educational buildings. I think that he considers that the body primarily responsible for providing books for students should be the educational institution to which those students go. I suggest that the primary duty of providing books for students in universities and technical colleges, in particular, should rest on the universities and technical colleges and that the duty of providing books for those still at school should rest on the local education authority which is partly rate-financed and partly financed by the central Government. It seems to me quite wrong to put upon the ratepayer the whole duty of providing facilities for the benefit of students.
I hope that in a number of cases local authorities will provide books for students in their libraries, if one accepts the word "student" as meaning the adult student as well as the youthful student and what I might call the amateur student wishing to study a foreign language or ancient history apart from the person embarking on a set course of study leading to a diploma, degree or certificate. It is asking a very great deal of the ratepayer to suggest that this should be his job. It should be the job of the educational institution which the student attends primarily to provide the books needed.
If the local authority is able to provide a good range of, say, French literature for those studying French, or a good range of engineering literature for those studying engineering, well and good. But I do not think that we should write into the Bill a provision which seems to me to imply that the local ratepayer should be responsible for providing books and facilities for all the


students at all the institutions of education, whether universities or not, which may happen to be in his area.
Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will remember my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) drawing attention to the very large number of students in Bristol who occasionally take up a lot of space in the reference libraries, and so on, which the local ratepayers would like to occupy. As I have said, we shall run into very grave difficulties if we put on the ratepayer this very substantial burden. If we do not mean to put this burden on him and on the local library authority within the framework of the Bill—and we cannot, on Report, argue about whether there should be Government grants to the library service—I do not think we should add these words to the Bill.

Mr. Duffy: I have some sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth). Those who have anything to do with a city or town which houses a university, college of advanced technology, college of technology or training college see the students from those educational institutions spilling over more and more into the local libraries. This is of serious concern to ratepayers, because they are often squeezed out. There are queues in the morning outside some libraries. In some areas places are booked at a very early stage in the day and places cannot be obtained after ten o'clock in the morning.
The situation is particularly acute in London. Here libraries are taking the strain of a very unsatisfactory "digs" situation for coloured students. The position for local ratepayers is even worse than the hon. Member for Basingstoke described. Yet I wonder whether he is taking too gloomy a view, whether he is being unnecessarily restrictive and, if I may say so without wishing to give offence, being perhaps too narrow in his view.
We know that for a few years to come, because of population growth and lack of accommodation in educational institions, there will be a pressure for seating space. Ratepayers will, perhaps, have to take a more generous view than that

taken by the hon. Member and recognise that they have to bear with this situation for a few years to come. It may be that ratepayers will take an even broader view and that they will recognise that some of their libraries house material which even local university libraries do not house—for example, old newspaper files which can be consulted only in those libraries by students.

Mr. O'Malley: Would my hon. Friend agree that in the past ratepayers have taken a much more generous view than the extreme view of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth)? The evidence of this is the great libraries in the university cities which have been built up from the nineteenth century.

Mr. Duffy: I agree. For example, the City of Leeds has a library which, in many important respects, has much more to offer the students than the university library. Of course, it attracts students from the University, but—

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I did not mean to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in mid-sentence, but since I have done so may I say this. My point was not that it was wrong or undesirable for students to use the public library, but that it was undesirable that we should put on the public library the primary responsibility of providing facilities for them.

Mr. Duffy: This is what happens. The City of Leeds Library has this problem of pressure on space and seating accommodation, but I am not aware that it is a matter even of irritation among a number of ratepayers in Leeds. Although I am in no better position to comment on local opinion than the hon. Gentleman, as far as I know, the ratepayers in Leeds accept the situation. I know that some ratepayers recognise that there is a certain amount of reciprocity in this situation and that if the library which they support as ratepayers is readily available to students the university library is available to them and that it will issue temporary readers' tickets to them.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will accept the Amendment. It does not put forward a wholly satisfactory remedy. Nevertheless, it meets a very serious short-term need. The question of physical facilities for students in our


library is of very great importance at present. I hope that it will not always be as acute as it is now. I trust that for the sake of the library system as a whole, even when the situation becomes less acute, the interchange of facilities and cooperation between local libraries and educational institutions will be recognised as necessary. We recognised it in part in Committee. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I rise to say a few words on the Amendment mainly because of the criticism which has been levelled at it by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth), who, I know, has a wide opinion of what our educational facilities, especially on the scientific side, should be.
I was surprised at the hon. Member's comments. He must appreciate that a tremendous expansion is taking place in educational facilities even under a Tory Government. The Government have been urged by the people to make expansion possible. One is shocked by statements such as those made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke that that kind of attitude to education in its wider sphere should still be in the minds of Government supporters.
Because of the lack of facilities within a university and the lack of accommodation within the boundaries of the cities and wherever the universities are situated, many students have to reside at home. Many of them live in lodgings several miles from the university. Therefore, at weekends they take advantage of the facilities, small as they are, which are provided at many of our libraries.
I come from an area which is about 12 miles from Sheffield. Many students who attend Sheffield University reside at home. These are the students for whom we should have a great deal of thought. If the hon. Member for Basingstoke thinks that the Amendment would place too large a burden upon the ratepayer and as he agrees—at least, I hope so—that there should be a great expansion in education, why does he not put down an Amendment for Government provision to local authorities to extend and increase the facilities by way of accommodation for students when they are away from their universities?
I fully appreciate the difficulities that might be placed upon ratepayers and local authorities, but my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) has pointed out that in almost every instance, ratepayers would willingly bear this extra burden. If we are to talk about the development of our educational system and if we are to have a "university of the air", we have to think not only of the existing students at universities, but of the adult student also. I appreciated what the hon. Member for Basingstoke said about the adult student. We will, I hope, continue to give facilities to people in all walks of life and in all age groups further to extend their education. To do this, we must provide more facilities through our local libraries.
Our libraries have to be developed and improved. We have just had a debate on an Amendment to substitute "improvement" for "development". We must both develop and improve, and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. No committee or council which advises the Minister would fail to take into account what further education means to people—students as well as adults—who cannot at particular times during the year take advantage of university library facilities.
Local library committees are trying to provide good reference rooms and reading rooms for students and others who want to extend their education. Because of the tremendous requirement from the people for further education, and the demand from youngsters to improve their educational standards so that they are capable of passing examinations, our local libraries are becoming inundated by the demand. I hope that the Government will not only accept this important Amendment because of the principle behind it, but that they will consider helping local authorities to provide these facilities which the people demand and about which we all talk so glibly.
We say that we must improve the educational standards of our people and that if we are to compete in the world of today, educational facilities must be greatly improved. Here is one way in which we can supplement the educational facilities of our universities for a section of the community. I refer to the students; and those who seek further education in later years. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not only


accept the Amendment, but will make provision for a financial contribution to the local authorities who supply these good facilities and that they will take cognisance of the points of view expressed by the hon. Member for Basingstoke about helping the ratepayer so that he does not have an extra burden to bear.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: My hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has raised the problem from his area of the day student at Sheffield University and elsewhere who uses the library facilities in that part of the West Riding. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) has raised the more general problem in different parts of the country. In recent years, I have had occasion to use the excellent library facilities provided by the metropolitan boroughs, which are in process of disappearing, and I know from personal experience that if one goes to one of these libraries shortly after they open in the morning, one is lucky to find a place to work. This applies not only to inner London, but is true also as one moves further out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy), with his knowledge of the work at the University of Leeds, raised the problem of that city which arises from the large number of students who use the central library facilities there. I add also from practical experience the use that is increasingly made of libraries by students following correspondence courses. This is a field which is sometimes slightly sneered at as not being quite educational in the general sense. In my view, it will expand.
In dealing with the problem, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) properly argued from the premise that the libraries are paid for from the rates and that it is not right that the expansion and problems accruing to the library service should fall upon the ratepayers. I have some sympathy with that argument arising largely from my view that rates are a regressive tax and that extra burdens should not be imposed upon this source but that the finance should come from central sources.
I wish to point out to the hon. Member for Basingstoke—and, unlike him, I support the Amendment—that all that the Amendment asks is that advice should be given by a library advisory council to the Minister. The problem of the use of local libraries which are set up to provide facilities for local ratepayers is, surely, a question on which an advisory council might properly advise the Minister.
Surely it is time that regional consideration was given to this problem. As the Secretary of State is now responsible for university education also, it may well be that there could be discussions between the two sides, particularly in, say, the City of Leeds, part of which I represent. The Amendment does not ask for additional financial burdens to be imposed upon the ratepayer. There are these real problems and it is time that they were dealt with. There is an influx, which is getting larger, I believe, of students from the Commonwealth who come not only to university in this country, but come "on spec" in the hope of obtaining a university place and eventually end up at some other different institution.
This is a great national problem and it is a problem in the City of Leeds. I support this Amendment not because it puts more financial burden upon the ratepayers, but because I believe that it is appropriate that the library advisory councils should advise the Minister on this problem because it is outside the normal problem faced by a local community providing library facilities.

Mr. Blackburn: I shall not detain the House for more than a minute or two, but I have some difficulty in understanding the objection which the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) has to this Amendment. If we were placing a statutory obligation on every local authority that it should provide facilities for the assistance of students I could understand his objection, but this Amendment does not do anything of the kind. It merely provides for one of the things which the Library Advisory Councils could report to and advise the Secretary of State upon.
As the Clause says:
There shall be two Library Advisory Councils … and it shall be the duty of each


Council to advise the Secretary of State upon such matters connected with the provision of library facilities
and we want to add
including facilities for the assistance of students".
As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, many libraries already provide assistance for students. Surely it is a sensible thing that these advisory councils should be able to report to the Minister and say, "This is a provision which is already being made and we think that it would be an advantage if an extension were made and if additional facilities were provided"—in such and such a place, and in such a direction. That is the sort of thing I envisaged would be done if this Amendment were accepted.
I really cannot understand the objection which the hon. Member for Basingstoke has to that sort of thing happening. He knows as well as any other Member of the House that many of the large cities are providing excellent reference libraries which are of great help to the student population. To me it seems only sensible, if we are to have an advisory council of any kind, that one of the things which the council should do is to report to the Secretary of State upon such matters.

Mr. O'Malley: A number of my hon. Friends have expressed sympathy for the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth). I cannot express such sympathy, because it seems to me to be—

Mr. Blackburn: I hope that my hon. Friend is not including me amongst those he says are expressing sympathy. I was expressing surprise.

Mr. O'Malley: I accept what my hon. Friend has said.
What I was going to say was that it is a feature of the actions of hon. Members opposite that the nearer a General Election comes the greater is their expression of concern for the welfare of the ratepayers. With respect to the hon. Member for Basingstoke, it seems to me he was being somewhat parochial on the question of the financial liability on the ratepayers.
Particularly at this time, when rates are genuinely becoming a burden in most parts of the country, we must give due

consideration to this factor, but the party opposite has been in power for 13 unfortunate years and in that time it has done nothing to remove the worst abuses of a system of taxation which is thought by many people to be absolutely inequitable and regressive.
However, what I wanted to say was that although I recognise that there is here a genuine concern for the present situation of the ratepayers, as my hon. Friend has just said all that this Amendment does is specifically to say that the library advisory councils shall advise the Secretary of State upon matters connected with the provision of library facilities including facilities for the assistance of students.
Although it is, perhaps, invidious to start establishing priorities and relative degrees of importance for the various sections of the community who use the public library service, I do not think that I would be going beyond the reasonable bounds of propriety in saying that in the long-term interests of the country one of the most important functions of the library service is to provide for the present and future generations of students.
8.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) knows there are students who are in universities, but also students who are at work during the day, in aircraft factories, for instance, and students who study through extramural departments, and they are often outside the university towns. I find that the facilities in so-called reference and reading rooms in many of the smaller libraries are woefully inadequate for the needs of this mass of students. One should bear in mind that this type of student in the coming decades will become increasingly important, numerically and in every other way.

Mr. Wainwright: I agree, but the facilities are lacking not only in the areas of the small authorities but throughout the whole country. The demand is so great at every library where facilities are provided. The number of students and of the people taking adult education courses and wanting places at the libraries is so great that they can hardly get in. I have just heard that in one library at ten o'clock on a Saturday morning there are no vacant places left.

Mr. O'Malley: I entirely agree. I recently went into the library in a university city where I had not been for over 10 years, and I was amazed at the difference in the conditions now in 1964 compared with those prevailing in 1954 and in the years after the war. As my hon. Friend has suggested, throughout the country one of the most urgent problems with which we have to deal is that of providing places, sheer physical places, in the libraries, for students to do their work.
I think it fair to point out to the hon. Member for Basingstoke that it is not a question of separate university library facilities, on the one hand, and the local library service, on the other. The two are complementary; there is an interchange between the services. In university towns large numbers of people through the extramural departments are connected in a part-time capacity with the universities' library facilities and with the universities themselves. Moreover, libraries in university towns and also libraries in smaller towns away from the universities in many cases provide a type of service, or should provide a type of service, which university libraries cannot provide entirely by themselves.
One thing which immediately occurs to my mind is the whole question of local historical collections. Of course, such a collection is for the benefit of the whole community, including—if we want to use the term—the ratepayers of the community, but if one goes into a local collection, where there is a local collection, one finds that the great majority of the people using the local collection are undergraduate or postgraduate students doing some kind of research. So, particularly for the older libraries, which have local collections, one wants to see the advisory councils giving advice about those sorts of facilities. All too often, particularly in the smaller centres of population, what happens is that the local collections, if they exist at all, are insufficiently catalogued, or they are placed in trunks stacked in cellars, often in local council offices, and often they are lost in local council offices.
As an example, we have here one kind of facility and service on which there is a growing need for advice and guidance and the library advisory council

could initiate some action through the Minister which would improve facilities for the assistance of students who want to use this service. I should very much like to have the Amendment accepted by the Minister. I hope that the hon. Member for Basingstoke will agree that it is not a question of an expense for the ratepayers. It is merely a question of the library advisory committee advising the Minister how local authorities can develop and improve services which sometimes they are already giving but which they must inevitably give and expand in the future if we are to cope with the vast increase in student numbers which we shall have in the coming decades.

Mrs. White: I should think that by now the Joint Under-Secretary of State must realise that we have strong feelings about the Amendment. It has been very powerfully supported by my hon. Friends. It was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), who is extremely knowledgeable in these matters, with very strong Yorkshire bowling, plus a little contribution from Cheshire. It must be clear that we take this seriously.
I assume that, even without the Amendment, it might be within the sphere of the two library advisory councils to consider the matter, but we are anxious to draw it very forcibly to their attention. Otherwise we may have some difficulties. As recent correspondence in The Times has indicated, there is a certain confusion of thought among librarians in the new universities who are asking for some special organisation for small university libraries and others who have had many years' experience in dealing with student problems in the great public library service. Attention was drawn to the need for co-operation and interchange between the two systems in an interesting letter by Mr. Munford, one of the directors-general of a specialist library, the Library for the Blind. He pointed out that, rather than having a number for separate organisations to deal with this, they should be brought together so that each side—the academic side and the public authority side—should know what the other was doing.
This is the thing to which we want the library advisory councils to pay


attention. A good deal of co-operation already exists in the technical colleges, perhaps rather more than at the university level. I am reminded of this by looking at the policy survey of the county libraries by the county libraries group of the Libraries Association of last year. It draws attention to the existing co-operation, particularly between the rather smaller and medium sized county authorities and the technical colleges in their areas. It points out that in some cases on the reference and technical information side integration of stock and, in a few cases, of staff is complete; in other words, they rely on one another. This is particularly true in the less populated counties where it would be uneconomical to provide a first-class technical information and reference service in both the public and technical college libraries. So it seems to me that attention should be paid at the earliest possible moment by the library advisory councils to the matter of co-ordination of stock and specialist staff.
On the question of accommodation for students, one has a certain sympathy, if the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) will accept it, with his difficulty that in some areas the vast majority of students who wish to use a public library may not be ratepayers directly or indirectly in that place. But the problem is there, and it must be dealt with. All of us have been concerned—frankly, I have been shocked—to find in making inquiries in the last few weeks the position which prevails in regard to seating accommodation for students who wish to study at public libraries. Many people must have been moved when they read the article which appeared in the Guardian last week about the "haves" and "have-nots". If one does not arrive at ten minutes to nine and get one's ticket when the 40 tickets are issued, one cannot study that day. It is almost becoming as bad as trying to queue at Covent Garden for a ticket for a Callas performance.
One wants to make adequate provision, but, equally, one does not wish to have extra provision made in one library which means that one may have empty rooms in other places during vacation. This is the substance of the Amendment. We feel that it is of great importance now and of increasing importance in the future that there should be proper co-ordination between the academic and

public library services. We are; asking that the library advisory councils should be told to consider this matter. The Joint Under-Secretary of State may say that the councils can do this anyway without the Amendment, but our reasons for tabling the Amendment are that the matter is of such importance and there are certain difficulties and we feel that we ought to draw specific attention to the problem.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stress) took the opportunity of the Amendment to raise a matter of importance in his constituency, where, as I know from various letters which I have received, a firm of consultants has recommended a reduction in staffing, and, if the information which I got from those letters is correct, the Stoke-on-Trent City Council has accepted that recommendation, but against the advice of its Library Committee.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what would be the attitude taken now by my right hon. and learned Friend. He will understand that now my right hon. and learned Friend has no standing in the matter and that until the Bill is passed he would not have power to act in a situation of this kind. If the hon. Gentleman inquires, as I think he does, what would be likely to be the reaction of my right hon. and learned Friend in the future in circumstances of this kind, I would stress, first, that it would be my right hon. and learned Friend's hope that progress would be made in the library service by persuasion and discussion. Clause 10 gives him power to intervene, but my right hon. Friend stressed in Committee that it is very much a reserve power. However, I can understand why the hon. Member should have wished to take the opportunity today to raise the matter and to point to the recommendations of the Working Party on Standards.
The debate on the Amendment has ranged widely, and I want to say at once that I have a great deal of sympathy with much of what has been said by many hon. Members. I know that their concern over the extent to which public libraries are used by students, and occasionally swamped by them, is shared by the Library Association. The Association recently expressed concern at the


heavy demands made on public libraries by students.
As the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) pointed out, there is no reason why library advisory councils should not consider this question, but I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) was being cruelly, perhaps even wantonly, misunderstood by one or two hon. Members opposite. His point seemed to me to be a fair one and not very dissimilar from that made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). If I understood my hon. Friend aright, he was merely protesting that the ratepayer should not have to meet too large a proportion of the demands made for library facilities by students.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: Will the hon. Gentleman say what his last remark—which was similar to one made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth)—has to do with this Amendment, which merely asks for power for advisory councils to advise the Minister on this kind of thing?

Mr. Chataway: I am coming to the wording of the Amendment in a moment. I am trying to reply to a point made by a number of hon. Members opposite, who were worried by the great demands made by students on public libraries at the moment. In so far as these difficulties have arisen from inadequate provision at universities or colleges to which students belong, the remedy clearly lies in making proper provision at these institutions. Such provision at universities and colleges of advanced technology is being considered now by the Parry Committee.
We recently had a lengthy Adjournment debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, when we considered progress and plans being made in providing further libraries for the teacher training colleges. I accept the difficulties that have arisen in a number of places, but it would be wrong to argue that public libraries should do nothing for students. Clearly, whatever improvements are made, the students will always be making considerable demands on public libraries. The Working Party Report said:

We hope that the pressure on library accommodation will be relieved as adequate university and college buildings are provided, but a need will remain for the public library to help the student with both books and room for study. We consider that all public libraries must be prepared to play their part in meeting this need, not only for students in educational establishments but for students working on their own.
The hon. Member for Flint, East and the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) were anxious to see greater co-operation between libraries. We should remember the opportunity for Library Advisory Councils to consider the working of all libraries, not only those provided under this Act but those provided otherwise, and, in addition to that, Clause 3 is relevant in that it provides for the establishment of regional councils.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East was the only one who addressed herself strictly to the need which she felt for inserting these words into the Bill. Of course, it is the case that the advisory councils can consider the matter. She has said that the reason for moving the Amendment is to impress upon my right hon. and learned Friend and on the advisory councils the importance of the matter. I hope that she and other hon. Members opposite will feel that that object has been achieved. I do not believe that these words add anything to the meaning of the Bill. It is not that my right hon. and learned Friend is in any way anxious to see the advisory councils in any way inhibited from considering the matter—far from it—and if in another place a similar Amendment appears, he would certainly be prepared to have it considered. But, on the basis of the discussion today, I strongly advise the House against inserting words which would appear to add nothing to the meaning of the Bill.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he refuses to accept an Amendment from the House of Commons, but that consideration will be given to it in another place?

Mr. Chataway: All I said was that if this matter was raised in another place, no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend would be prepared to consider it. It is not an issue which he would wish to exclude from consideration, but, on the basis of what has been said today, and,


presented with the words of the Amendment, I cannot advise the House to insert these words, because, as I have explained, they do not add anything to the meaning of the Bill.

Mr. Willey: On Report stage one is in difficulties, but had we been in Committee I am sure that my hon. Friends would have immediately intervened on the concluding remarks of the Under-Secretary. I do not for a moment question that he and his right hon. and learned Friend and the advisory councils will be sympathetic about this matter, but it is of such importance that we should express our view in legislation. The present position seems to be that if this debate is repeated in another place, possibly, probably, the noble Lord speaking for the Ministry will accept the Amendment.
I can tell the Under-Secretary that, in view of what he has said, it is most likely that this issue will be raised in another place. I hope that he will be able to assure us that not only will it be considered but that words like these will be accepted. What he has said is rather derogatory to the House of Commons. I know that there is much to be said for bicameral legislation and that something can be given second consideration, but this should not involve being told at the end of a debate here that if the Amendment is proposed in another place the Government will probably accept it.
Even if the Amendment is not accepted, in all probability this matter will be considered by the advisory councils, but when we were considering museums we could have said on the subject of charges that local authorities would pay regard to the interests of students and that it was not necessary to have a specific provision. We inserted that provision because we wanted particular attention to be called to that matter.
This is a major problem, and it will be a growing problem over the next few years. Parliament would not be carrying out its duty in the consideration of the Bill if it did not insist that this burden was placed on the advisory councils. All of us who have studied the documents prepared by the interested

associations know that it is a great problem calling for a great deal of coordination and that the library is the core of higher and further education. The other day when I visited a college of further education I was delighted to see what pains were being taken to expose the library, as it were, to the students. I was impressed when the staff told me that it is vitally important to get students interested in their library. We have to tackle these two problems in order to ensure the use of the libraries and to co-ordinate them. We shall be desperately short of accommodation in the next few years.
I do not wish to query the interest of the hon. Gentleman in this matter or his integrity regarding the assurance that this will be considered by the advisory councils. In the light of what he has said, I hope we may rest assured that if this should by chance be raised in another place the Government will accept a similar Amendment.

Mr. Boyden: In view of the theoretical agreement of the Joint Under-Secretary and the lordly snub, I feel that I can do no more than beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made.: In page 2, line 4, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 5, leave out "Ministry of Education" and insert:
Department of Education and Science".

In line 17, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 20, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Clause 3.—(REGIONAL COUNCILS FOR INTER-LIBRARY CO-OPERATION.)

Amendments made:

In page 2, line 22, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 24, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 42 leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move. Amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 42, at the end to insert:
(3) At least a majority of the library council for a region shall consist of members of library authorities within the region, and an authority none of whose members is included in the library council shall be represented on the council by such of the persons so included as may be determined in accordance with the scheme establishing the council.
This Amendment is designed to allay fears expressed by hon. Members during the Committee stage discussion that the regional councils might not be democratically constituted. The first part of the proposed new subsection secures that at least a majority of members of regional library councils shall be members of library authorities within the region. This is done in accordance with undertakings which I gave during the Committee stage discussions. It is intended to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) who was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth).
This Amendment will ensure that the principle of democratic control will be observed in regional councils and that librarians and other officials who might be members of the council shall not be in a position to out-vote the elected representatives. This is of some importance because the councils will have power;to require payments from member authorities which are necessary to meet expenditure. The actual composition of the regional councils will be determined by the schemes establishing them which will be made after consultation with the local authorities concerned. The second part of the new subsection is intended to remove any doubt that one member of a council can represent several library authorities This was fully discussed in the Standing Committee and I think that it was accepted by hon. Members. The Amendment puts beyond doubt that there need not be one representative for each library authority on a council which may be covering a very wide area

Sir B Stross: I propose to make a short speech by declaring that I am well pleased with the Amendment which has been moved by the Under-Secretary.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 5, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 7, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Mr. Chataway.]

Clause 4.—(LIBRARY AUTHORITIES AND AREAS.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 23, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Mr. Chataway.]

Clause 5.—(JOINT BOARDS.)

Amendments made: In page 3, line 41, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In page 4, line 17, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 17, leave out "the authorities constituting" and insert:
an authority comprised in".

In line 20, leave out "those authorities" and insert:
the authorities constituting the board".

In line 40, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Mr. Chataway.]

Clause 6.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO NON-COUNTY BOROUGHS AND URBAN DISTRICTS.)

Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, In page 5, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to "by" in line 17 and to insert:
6.—(1) Where—

(a) the council of a non-county borough or urban district was a library authority immediately before a date (in this section referred to as a "review date"), being the date of the commencement of this Act or falling ten years after that or any subsequent review date, and
(b) the population of the borough or urban district at the review date is less than 40,000,
the Secretary of State, if, after consulting the council of the borough or urban district and also the county council or, where the county council is comprised in a joint board established under section 5 above, the joint board, and after taking account of any likely changes


in the area and population of the borough or urban district and of other relevant matters, he is of opinion that to do so would lead to an improvement in the library facilities made available under this Act in the borough or urban district, may at any time before the next review date by order provide that on a date specified in the order the council of the borough or urban district shall cease to be a library authority.
(2) The power to make an order under subsection (1) above shall be exercisable.
This is the big Government Amendment to Clause 6 which arose directly out of our proceedings upstairs. I hope that the House will bear with me if speak at rather greater length on this Amendment than on some others we have considered today. The Amendment has two objects. First, it gives effect to undertakings that were given in Standing Committee, as reported in c. 184 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the Secretary of State would have regard, among other things, to the alternative service provided by the county council, the effect of local government reviews and other changes likely to affect the population of the library authority in question. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) will recall the importance that a number of hon. Members attached to ensuring that when this Clause operates consideration will be given not merely to the population as it is today, but also the prospective future population.
The second object is to make the new subsection (1) fit the existing subsection (2) which was added in Standing Committee. The Committee, in its wisdom, carried an Amendment saying, in effect, that the power to refuse an application to continue a library service for a small authority shall be exercised only by Statutory Instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution by either House of Parliament. I said that I did not propose to ask the House to reverse that decision taken in Standing Committee, but this in a sense is drafting to enable the new subsection (1) to dovetail with the decision taken by the Committee on that occasion.
The new subsection (1), in lines 10 and 11, requires the Secretary of State to take account
of any likely changes in the area and population of borough or urban district".
This would include boundary changes and changes in population for other reasons,

for example, overspill of population from the area of one authority to another. Subsection (1) as redrafted also provides that the Secretary of State may deprive a library authority of its functions only if
he is of opinion that to do so would lead to an improvement in the library facilities made available … in the borough or urban district".
This gives effect to the principle that no authority should be deprived of its functions without regard to the standard of services which it would be likely to get from the county council.
It has always been the intention of the Government to take account of this factor. On Second Reading, I said that I held the balance between county and borough rather more fairly than some of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) is not present, but I think that he would not mind my saying that he was unfair in accepting too uncritically the view that my Second Reading speech was tilted in favour of the counties.
This subsection makes it absolutely clear that the Government's intention is, without question, to have regard to the standard of the alternative services which any small borough would get from the county council. Apart from giving effect to these undertakings given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary in Committee, the subsection has been redrafted to fit in with the new subsection (2).
The effect of subsection (2) is that the taking away from a borough or urban district council of its library powers must be done by means of an Order made by Statutory Instrument subject to the negative Resolution procedure. I hope that the House in the future will not use this procedure too indiscriminately, in such a way as to obstruct the proper administration of the Act. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was not in Standing Committee that morning. But one of the things that impressed me was the moderate tone in the speeches on both sides of the Committee in favour of an Amendment which was then carried against the Government, and I am satisfied that there will not be any indiscriminate use of this procedure which would make it, I think, impossible to carry out the Act.
The effect of this revised wording is in substance the same as before, except for this: if an authority with a population of less than 40,000 is to be deprived


of its library powers, there will now have to be an Order made by Statutory Instrument instead of just a refusal by the Secretary of State of an application made by the Council. The administrative procedure will be rather different because no formal application from an authority will be necessary. Instead, there is a requirement that the authority shall be consulted by the Secretary of State and that it seems to me, is clearly right.
I want to mention one other effect of the revision and change made from the original wording in the Bill. Subsection (1), in its original form, meant that a library authority with a population of under 40,000 which failed to apply for the continuance of its powers within six months of the review date lost them automatically. It was never the intention that a local authority should lose its powers by oversight—1 think that if my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was here he might say per incuriam—but this could have happened under the original wording. Under the revised subsection all library authorities will retain their powers unless and until the Secretary of State makes an Order under subsection (1) or (5).
Perhaps I might mention that in the Amendment, in page 5, line 28, leave out "(1) or" is consequential on the one I have just been discussing. No application is required under the new version of subsection (1) and that subsection now contains the requirement for consultation with the county council or joint board.
I ask the House to forgive me for speaking a little longer than usual on this Amendment, because there are one or two other points that I should like to make. First, it is not my idea that all decisions on library functions will have to be postponed until the county review required under Section 28 of the 1958 Local Government Act has been carried out. There will probably be areas where county reviews are not likely to be a relevant factor, but where there is doubt as to their effect this ought to be taken into account and in some cases, but only some, it would be right to postpone the decision on library functions.
I and my Department are very keen to hold the balance fairly—on the one hand, not to hurry up decisions where there is real uncertainty about local government boundaries in the future, but, equally, not to use the 1958 Act or allow it to be used as an occasion for an indefinite filibuster in what may be one or two sensitive areas. I think that that would be wrong. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), who is not in his place now, said, fairly enough, that we had not said very much about standards during these proceedings. I want to emphasise the words of the Working Party, namely, that it is not enough in the assessment of efficiency to consider any given public library authority in isolation. The words of the Working Party are very relevant to the Amendment which we are discussing:
The performance of any authority has to be examined in the light of the performance of others. For instance, the efficiency of a smaller authority must be compared with that of any system with which it might be merged or with which it might enter into closer co-operative arrangements. It would be no service to the public for the Minister to withdraw the library powers of an existing authority on the grounds that essential standards were not being mantained if the authority which took its place were then to maintain equally low or even lower standards, and it is no answer to this argument to say that the alternative authority has greater potentialities unless those potentialities are at least demonstrably in sight of being realised. Then again, the interaction between two or more systems must be taken into account in considering the actual or potential efficiency of either.
In other words, we need to form a plan of what will be the best development prospects of the library service considered as a whole, and in doing so I can assure the House that there is no question of the Government starting with a prejudice either on the side of the boroughs or on the side of the counties.
I sound two notes of caution. There may be places where it would clearly be in the interests of the inhabitants of both the areas concerned—the county and the borough or urban district—if the two library services were joined, for example, by pooling their resources. There are many cases in which they might then greatly extend the range of books available. By using one library to serve both the town and the surrounding county, they might well be able to improve the


service all round. These are considerations which my right hon. and learned Friend and his successors should take into account. No one should think that the new wording implies that he could not properly take into account the benefits to the county council area of the amalgamation as well as to the borough or urban district, but, of course, the borough or urban district will, naturally, expect an assurance that any change will not be for the worse from their point of view.
The Secretary of State is entitled here to take the long view. He will not expect a sudden and dramatic improvement on the day of a transfer, if such a transfer is decided upon, but he must be satisfied that the change will lead to an improvement and the best planning of the arrangements in the area.
I believe that, in practice, it will often be found the best method to keep to the timetable proposed in the original wording of subsection (1). Subsection (1) as it left the Committee provided that unless an application for the continuance of the council as a library authority were approved, it should cease to be a library authority six months from the notice of the Minister's refusal, or, in the event of no application for continuance, one year from the review date.
It is, broadly, my right hon. and learned Friend's intention, though we have this altered procedure and altered legislative language in Clause 6(1), to allow the same sort of interval for arranging the transfer if the authority concerned desires it, although there may be occasions on which it might be better to fix some other date, such as the beginning of the next financial year. I cannot help feeling that one advantage of the procedure by order, subject to negative Resolution, is that it will allow for greater flexibility.
I hope that I have shown that we have given considerable thought to the wording of Clause 6. We have taken notice of the points raised by hon. Members on both sides in Committee. On the one hand it is important that justice should be seen to be done for the smaller boroughs, but, equally, we must remember the objective of the best library service all round. This is a matter which must not be decided by

who shouts loudest. In each area we must consider what is best for the future of the library service and for those who use it, and I suggest to the House the new wording of Clause 6 gives a reasonable procedure both for settling what are bound to be a number of extremely difficult questions and for settling them in a way which affords reasonable parliamentary control by the House.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: The Minister of State has said that the words of the Amendment are very clear and easy to understand. They may be crystal clear to the right hon. Gentleman, but many people will think that they are imprecise. The provision
after taking account of any likely changes in the area and population of the borough or urban district
seems to me to have to cover two things: first, the local government review, and, secondly, the question of overspill. The Minister of State did not say what other relevant matters there are.
The words
would lead to an improvement in the library facilities made available
are to cover the comparison between the standard of library facilities provided by counties and those provided by non-county boroughs or urban districts.
The language is rather imprecise. These words are now introduced to fulfil a number of promises given in Committee on certain Amendments which were accepted in principle. The Amendments were clear in their wording and could be easily understood. My experience of Ministers is that, if an Amendment is extremely clear and everybody can understand it without any worry, the Minister in charge always says, "Whilst I accept the Amendment in principle, it may not be worded exactly correctly and I will table an Amendment, properly worded, on Report".
For obvious reasons, I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I forget whether at the time I was presiding over the Police Bill, or enjoying the company of the Scots. However, I was very interested in the progress of the Bill, not only because of my own great interest in the library service and


what was to happen to it, but because of my constituency interest, because in my constituency there are three non-county borough library authorities which are extremely proud of the provision they make but are in danger of losing it.
In Committee, the Joint Under-Secretary gave three very definite and precise promises. First, with regard to the effect of the Local Government Commission's review he said this:
I undertake that we shall do our best to find a form of words to meet this kind of Amendment before Report.
I do not know why the words of the Amendment needed to be considered, or why a different form of words was necessary. However, the Government have chosen this form of words. I am not quarrelling with the Amendment. I am merely saying that it is not as precise and clear as the Amendments moved in Committee.
I raised on Second Reading the question of the local government review, because my constituency comes within an area which is at present being considered by the Local Government Commission. We do not know how long it will take the Commission to report or how long it will be after the Commission has reported before Parliament considers the matter. It would seem to be rather foolish to transfer the library authority to the county council if in a short time we get a report from the Commission that there is to be an amalgamation of a number of authorities, as some of them have expressed a wish to do, and a new county borough is formed. I take it from the speech of the Minister of State that that promise is supposed to be covered by the words
likely changes in the area and population".
Any likely growth of population is a factor to be taken into account. Again, we have this very definite promise by the Joint Under-Secretary:
We shall be prepared to write a provision of this kind into the Bill".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 9th April, 1964; c. 184.]
The Amendment was much clearer than the words the Government now propose to write into the Bill.
This is also a constituency matter, because Hyde, in my constituency, has

a population of about 32,000, is a library authority and believes that it provides an excellent library service. Before long it will have a population of well over 40,000, because of the overspill being received from Manchester. I take it from the explanation of the Minister that that matter is covered by the wording of the Amendment.

Sir E. Boyle: I have been doing some comparing while, the hon. Gentleman has been speaking. I note that although we discussed five Amendments together in Standing Committee it would seem that
… any likely changes in the area and population of the borough or urban district…
is a reasonable digest, of those five, very much longer Amendments.
It should be remembered that one of the Amendments moved by the Opposition talked of
… expected in the near future…
and I have deliberately drafted this Amendment without the inclusion of those rather limiting words.

Mr. Blackburn: The right hon. Gentleman is clear about what the Amendment means. I hope that those who have not heard his explanation will be equally clear.
The third factor is the alternative service which the county council could offer. In Standing Committee, the Joint Under-Secretary said:
… my right hon. Friend has appreciated the force of the arguments which have been deployed. We shall, therefore, on Report seek to write into the Bill a provision to that effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 9th April, 1964; c. 184.]
I take it that the words in the Amendment,
… would lead to an improvement in the library facilities…",
would carry out that promise. I do not know whether the Minister has considered the Amendments which my hon. Friends moved in Standing Committee on this point, and whether he thinks the words in his Amendment are more precise. Perhaps we should not look a gift horse in the mouth. The right hon. Gentleman is confident that the Amendment will carry out the three promises to which I have referred. We have those promises on the record and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment will achieve the purpose he has in mind.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): In calling the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth), will he be rising to move his Amendment?

Mr. Denzil Freeth: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I rise to intervene in the debate.
I thank my right hon. Friend for fully fulfilling the promises he made in Standing Committee. I am grateful to him for insisting on consultation, for stating that the Secretary of State must take account of any likely changes in the population or area and I agree that this is a concise form of phraseology. I like the phrase "relevant matters", because it is fairly broad and will enable every possible consideration to be made in every possible circumstance.

Mr. Blackburn: Would the hon. Member be prepared to say what he understands to be the meaning of "relevant matters"?

Mr. Freeth: Any matter which the Secretary of State would consider relevant.

Mr. Blackburn: Really.

Mr. Freeth: Even more important, it will mean that urban district councils and borough councils will be able to submit to scrutiny every point they have in mind which is related to the provision of library facilities.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Freeth: I will not give way. I think that we have done enough semantics for the moment.
I am equally glad that my right hon. Friend has fully fulfilled his undertaking to write into the Bill words to the effect that any change in a library authority will have to lead to an improvement in the library facilities of a borough or urban district council. I am also glad that my right hon. Friend has accepted the decision of the Standing Committee in relation to exercising this power only by Order, and Order subject to annulment by Resolution by either House of Parliament. As my right hon. Friend knows, both sides of the Committee, with one or two exceptions on each side, laid very great stress on this principle, and we should be grateful to him for accepting the wisdom of the Committee by

redrafting this Clause about the axis of that decision.
It is good that the onus should be on the Secretary of State to approach local authorities, to inquire into their intentions and look into them in his own time and in the order of his own choosing. It would have been very sad if some library authorites had found that their right to remain library authorities had gone by default because a letter had not been answered. In general, therefore, I should like to thank my right hon. Friend very much for all that he has done.
With regard to the two Amendments standing in my name in the Notice Paper, as I said earlier, the first Amendment was put down, in the main—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot discuss his Amendments now; he will have to do that when I put the second half of the Question. That is why I asked him earlier.

Mr. Freeth: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was trying to explain why I did not intend to move them. For various reasons I have given I shall not move them, and will not dwell longer on them. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that the Bill is very much better through the wisdom and statesmanship which he was brought to it.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I am very pleased with the Amendment. I was very worried during the Second Reading debate about the figure of 40,000, as I have a constituency case affected by it. Wrexham has a tradition of 78 years as the first local authority in Denbighshire to establish a library. I am very pleased that the Minister has seen fit to move this Amendment, and I am quite satisfied with it.

Mr. K. Lewis: I, too, would like to thank the Minister for this Amendment, which has gone a long way to reassure those of us who were a little worried in Committee. He has removed any idea that there was prejudice on his part then. A great many small library authorities are quite as good as the larger ones, and some of them are better. What I like about the Amendment is that it provides that no library authority shall cease to be such unless that would lead


to an improvement in the library facilities.
When my right hon. Friend was speaking just now, I thought that he was inclined to support the view that it might be justifiable for a small authority that at present had a library to amalgamate with a large one, because the smaller one would improve the larger authority. That is as though a bucket of water, dropped in the sea, could make any difference, or as though a ruly person could, on going into an unruly house, improve the household.
Larger authorities should look after themselves in this connection. I do not think that there would be much advantage in a smaller authority being amalgamated with a big one in order to improve the big one. The big authority has to improve itself, and has to be told by my right hon. Friend that it should improve its library service, if that service is deficient. If, within a county council area, a small borough has a superior library service, the large county should be told that because of the borough's good deeds in the past and its present good standard, it should be allowed to continue. I therefore take it that in putting down this new Amendment my right hon. Friend intends to look at all these matters with an open mind. I hope that he, or whoever his successors may be, will do just this when dealing with smaller authorities.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Harper: I interrupt the vote of thanks which seems to be circulating throughout the Chamber in gratitude to the Minister to say that I am against the Amendment. I am certainly against the population limit of 40,000. There seems to be a fetish in every debate in the House and, indeed, elsewhere in the country that there should be larger and larger authorities. It is said that a county borough must have 250,000 population before it works properly and that an urban district council cannot be worked with a population of under 50,000. This is all wrong.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) said that some of the smaller library authorities are better than the larger ones, but somebody has got it into his head that the larger the better. [Laughter.] I am glad

somebody is laughing. This is the first laugh that I have heard here today. One would think that the future of England was at stake on this issue, but this is not so.
We are fast getting into a situation where if one is small one is of no account and if one does not get out of the way one is kicked out. If that cannot be done by fair means it is done by foul. We in this Chamber, of course, do it by fair means, because there is such a thing as a Statutory Instrument, known as Mr. Secretary of State. I may appear to be biased on this subject. I belong to a small authority, and I am proud of it. We do a better job than the big authorities in many ways.
There are two library authorities in my constituency, but I have not been approached by them on the subject of the Bill or on libraries in general. In Pontefract, we have a very good library authority. I do not say that it could not be better. Since this Bill was introduced it has taken steps to improve the library service by employing extra staff, and so on.
The other library authority in my constituency is quite remarkable. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) did a great deal of homework on this subject before Second Reading, especially on the statistical side. He found that the other authority to which I refer, Castleford, has the finest record of any non-county borough in the West Riding in the matter of library services, and the West Riding authority is supposed to be one of the best education authorities areas in the country. The Castleford service is certainly better than that of any county borough, with the exception of the City of Sheffield, which is also in the West Riding.
The population of Castleford in the late 1950s was about 43,000, but for one reason or another it is going down. In 1960 it had dropped to 41,690. In 1963 it dropped to 40,300. In 1964 it is just over the 40,000 mark—40,240. By the time the Bill is passed it may be below 40,000. If this is the yardstick which we are to apply, two of my library authorities will go out. One is the best in the West Riding, and if my hon. Friend had done some more homework he might have found out that it was the best in the country.

Mr. Duffy: Certainly—for its size.

Mr. Harper: Therefore, I do not know why the Minister has moved an Amendment like this or why he has written into the Bill the figure of 40,000, to which I take very great exception. I do not think that population has any great bearing on the matter.
The Minister, in his reply, might say that the bigger the population, the bigger the rateable value, the bigger the product of a penny rate and the more money the local authority will be able to invest in the library service. But is that so? I do not think that it is. If it were so, the West Riding County Council would have a better library service than Castleford, but it has not. The Minister indicated that if there were two authorities which were a little insensitive—one has to read into these things and one does not always arrive at the right answer—they can get together with the county. Who gets together with any county without the county taking charge? If Pontefract, with a population of 25,000, dovetailed in with the county, it would not be Pontefract; it would be the West Riding County Council. The county council would take charge and would be the boss. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the counties are not always the best library authorities. I do not think that this would add anything to what Pontefract has now. It certainly would not add anything to what Castleford has.
I ask the Minister to think again about this Amendment and to withdraw it. I do not think that it will benefit anybody. We have carried this farce of bigger authorities and larger boundaries too far. It is getting us nowhere. Somebody has got a fancy idea in his head. If he thinks that it will not work one way, he will work it another way and we shall finish up with it not working at all. I suggest to the Minister that he looks further at this Amendment with a view to withdrawing it.

Mr. Duffy: I want to take issue with the Minister's statement that he has met all the points raised in Committee on Clause 6. He certainly has not done that. He has not met the objection to this Clause that I put forward through the medium of the Amendment which I moved in Committee. The right hon.

Gentleman may recall that I was particularly concerned at that stage about his writing into the Bill of this population criterion of 40,000. I know that he has made considerable concessions. The Amendment is a big improvement. Nevertheless, it does not meet my objection to the 40,000 criterion which is implicit in the Clause.
It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) to say that the Minister will, presumably, judge with an open mind the right of independent library authorities to continue to be independent library authorities even though they have a population of less than 40,000.

Mr. K. Lewis: I said that I hoped that my right hon. Friend and his successors would judge this with an open mind. If they do that, the smaller authorities, if they are efficient, will stay.

Mr. Duffy: Does the hon. Member really believe that the Minister can bring an open mind to bear on this question whilst he persists in retaining the 40,000 population criterion?

Mr. Lewis: I have already proved that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are receptive to pressure, influence and persuasion from me concerning smaller authorities by what they did in Rutland. I cannot assume that they would do any less for library authorities in the hon. Member's area or elsewhere

Mr. Duffy: If there were more Rut-lands, I would agree, but Rutland is merely a symbol of the flexibility which the hon. Member has mentioned. I do not think that it will go beyond that. I doubt whether we shall see any other examples of that kind of concession.
The 40,000 population criterion will be taken by the Minister as corresponding to a minimum standard. It will be the inarticulate premise that will inform his judgment. Far from bringing an open mind to bear upon the capability of small authorities to continue as independent library authorities, the Minister will start with this objection to them simply because they have a population of less than 40,000. They will be regarded as less qualified than authorities with more than 40,000 population and they will start at a disadvantage.
The Minister would not be human if he was not influenced in that way against them. He simply cannot bring completely objective criteria to bear upon the future of authorities with populations of less than 40,000 whilst he retains Clause 6(1,b). Since he has made the concession which he has done, why has he not gone all the way and removed this population criterion? It is clear that he regards this as an integral part of his Bill. When one goes back to the Committee stage, one readily sees why. The Minister argued then that he was concerned about the cost to ratepayers. In this context, I quote paragraph 57 of the Roberts Report, which states that
the public library service is not maintained, as many other local services are maintained, at a cost strictly proportionate to population, since the range of demand from a population of 20,000 in one area may be as wide as that from a population of 50,000 in another.
The Minister regarded that as a significant point, and so do I.
The right hon. Gentleman clearly thinks that a smaller authority has as wide a range of demand for books as a larger authority but that the cost of meeting that demand would be much greater proportionately. He considered that to be an argument for writing the population criterion into the Bill, and, of course, he is right. Why, however, has he not taken the view that among the 194 municipal bodies and urban district councils who would be affected by the Clause, there may be some who would be prepared to bear this greater cost? Why has not the Minister been prepared to allow this? He may reply that he will be prepared to do so.
I remember what my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) said and the eagerness with which he rushed forward to congratulate the Minister, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham thinks, as I do, that those who will be affected are only the authorities with a population of just below 40,000, whereas I am thinking of urban district councils in the West Riding of Yorkshire, although not in my constituency, with a population considerably less. I have no constituency interest. I am merely concerned, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) for the

smaller authorities who have been doing a good job. I want them to be allowed to go on doing a good job.
The cost to the ratepayer does not come within the Minister's province; it is not his direct concern although it is, of course, important. If the Minister was really concerned for local government and its strength and morale, he should avoid weakening it. But that is just what he is doing by taking away an important responsibility like that of providing a library service from smaller authorities and giving it to larger authorities.
9.30 p.m.
This transfer of functions from smaller authorities to larger authorities in local government for so many years now has been gnawing at the vitals of local government. As I shall say later, on Third Reading, I am not opposed to reform in local government. On the contrary, I welcome it, and I realise the case for larger units, perhaps more than does my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract; but where small authorities can justify their retention of powers I think they should be allowed to go on possessing them.
These smaller authorities—some of them I have in mind have populations of only between 20,000 and 30,000—urban districts are still outside the conspectus of the Minister. I do not think he thinks for a minute that his concession will reprieve them. I do not think these small authorities will be impressed by what he has had to say about an alternative service. I think the Minister's criterion should not be population; the criterion should be one of efficiency. Again, I know he has said this, but again let me repeat that I do not think he will jog them on terms of efficiency but that he will jog them on terms of population size. Incidentally, before I leave the matter of population, he has not convinced me, and I suspect he has not convinced many Members who served on the Standing Committee, that 40,000 is the right figure, if we have got to have a figure at all. I have not heard any conclusive argument in favour of a particular figure.
I am not indifferent, of course, to the burden which a great responsibility such as that for the library service places


upon some smaller authorities, and they, no doubt, will have to surrender their powers, and some of them may do so willingly, but nor do I regard financial resources as the only criteria. There are others I have already mentioned, such as the will to go on trying to provide this service; pride in having done it in the past and having done it well; the tradition of having been a good library authority in the past, even though it is a small, a paltry, seemingly, urban district authority, which can, nevertheless, put up a better record than many large county boroughs and even its own county council. It is with these small authorities I am concerned.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke)—I am sorry he is not in his place—reminded the Joint Under-Secretary of State and the Minister in Committee:
Does he see no virtue in establishment as such? Has he never read Edmund Burke? Is he sitting on the wrong side of the Committee?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 9th April, 1964; c. 191.]
He was, presumably, at that point directing his remarks to the Minister, but I would remind the hon. and learned Member that neither he nor his party has any monopoly of Edmund Burke. I recall that I have never heard anyone speak or argue so convincingly about Edmund Burke and with such warmth as the late Professor Harold Laski. I never heard anyone argue a case more convincingly against Edmund Burke than the late Professor Laski.
However, I think the Minister's duty above all is of course to provide general supervision, which is what this Bill is all about, to try to reconcile imposing standards from the centre with local autonomy. I do not underestimate the difficulty. It is a very difficult equilibrium to establish. I hope the Minister is listening to me because I should welcome his comments on this. I am not speaking extravagantly when I say that I think this is crucial to the success of the Bill, this establishment of an equilibrium which is fan to what the Minister is trying to achieve, a reasonable standard throughout the country, but also fair to the people in the locality who have been doing the job for many years and now believe they are being treated badly.
I do not think that the Minister has established this equilibrium through

Clause 6(l,b). It is an arbitrary figure at best if he must have it. I do not think that the small authorities will be reassured by new Clause 1. If the Minister insists on having the population criterion in the Bill, it will frustrate many small authorities because they will believe that they are being judged more severely than others simply because they are small. I do not see how the Minister can bring a completely impartial criterion to bear on his judgment about the small authorities while he has Clause 6(1,b).
I do not know of anything that produced greater unanimity on both sides of the Committee than this matter. Despite the eagerness with which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and the hon. Member for Rutland congratulated the Minister, I cannot believe that the concern then expressed has completely drained away. There are still some hon. Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Pontefract and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who share my concern and my belief that the Bill would lose nothing if the Minister removed the population criterion. On the contrary, that would improve it. The Minister would still get the standards that he is after and that we all want, but his action would convince the small authorities that they were being treated on their merits.

Mr. Wainwright: I want to say a few words on behalf of the small authorities, and I want to do without being parochial—which might appear to be very difficult.
The Minister should realise that local authorities which have small libraries are at present providing the facilities that we have been talking about to the best of their ability. When the Minister says in his Amendment "after consultation" with the borough or urban council and the county council, he means that he will have a few words with them. But I always dread it when a Minister puts these words in a Bill. What the Minister means here is, "Right. I will listen to what you have to say, but if you have a population of less than 40,000 you are out." This is wrong. If this is at the back of the Minister's mind all the time, it is not fair and just. I may be misjudging the Minister on this issue, but in my short experience of the House I have always found that that


sort of consultation with small authorities is of no value.
We are placing the small authority against the county council. Anyone with any experience of local authority work knows that as soon as it is possible for a county council to take over certain powers, it rarely grants those powers to a smaller authority. In the light of the possibility of this sort of thing happening, the Minister ought to be very wide in his examination of the problem.
I am greatly disturbed by the trend in both local government and industry for larger and larger units on the ground that they create greater efficiency. They do in many instances, but we must not forget that by having larger units we are inclined to lose the human touch, which is very important. To me, the local touch is the human touch. If the Government persist with a minimum of 40,000, they will remove the contact between people in these small local authority areas and their local councillors by placing responsibility for their libraries not in the hands of local library committees, but in the hands of larger units.
If the Minister can convince me that this will bring greater facilities to the people I will be with him wholeheartedly. Tonight, we have been talking about facilities for students and adult education. Where are the reference libraries to be? Are they to be in the local libraries? Or are local library committees to be told that their accommodation is not big enough and the quality of service not good enough? If these facilities are not good enough, how do we improve them? We do so by spending more money—local ratepayers' money.
Up to now, we have not heard of any grant from central funds for this purpose. Is the money to come from the larger authority? If so, it cannot spend more and more money on each local library. If it could, then those local libraries might as well stay under their own local authorities, which will be passing over the rates to the larger authority.
Obviously, this means that libraries will be centralised and that worries me. In providing facilities for students, are

we to place them where students can easily reach them while living at home or on leave from university or college? Or are we to subject students to big fares to and from libraries considerable distances from their homes? Or, I repeat, are we to spend more money on each library in each local authority area?
This Amendment will not improve library facilities. We can do that only by spending more money. If we select a few libraries to improve, causing people to travel long distances to them, then we shall lose the local, human touch. The Minister should be more forthcoming on how he is to compel—because that is what this Bill means—library authorities to improve their facilities in every area throughout the country.
I hope that he will give serious thought to consulting local authorities. Two or three local authorities in my constituency are very disturbed about this. If the Bill goes through as it stands, together with this Amendment, their powers will be taken away because their populations are less than 40,000. In effect, as has been pointed out, the minimum of 40,000 population means that the Minister has made up his mind that he need take little heed of the views of local authorities with populations below that figure. If that is true, it defeats the whole object of what we are trying to do with this Measure.
9.45 p.m.
The Clause hits very hard at the principle of the human touch and efficient local facilities in the hands of local authorities. All that will be thrown away. Many of us will be upset if that happens. I do not want to appear to be parochial and I want the best kind of library facilities which can be provided so that we can make certain that students who do not have the opportunity for constant study at universities, adults taking further education courses and so on, shall have the best available facilities, at close hand and not miles away.
I shall be with him 100 per cent. if the Minister will bear that in mind and will take account of the arguments of local authorities and will give a wise and fair judgment after his consultations. However, when I see a provision about consultation between a Minister and local authorities followed by a qualification—and in this case the qualification is the


limit of 40,000 population—I know what will happen. If it does, there will be much criticism from this side of the House.

Mr. Willey: It is my painful duty to point out to my hon. Friend that they face the dilemma that if they do not like the words, of the Amendment and succeed in defeating it, the words of the Bill are worse. If my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) regards them as evil choices, I must advise him to choose the better by accepting the Amendment, which I regard as a conscientious attempt to improve the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has paid regard to what was said in Standing Committee. I congratulate him on having set a good precedent in accepting the decision of the Standing Committee and not asking the Patronage Secretary to rally his dis-spirited troops to reverse it. I can understand his anxiety that his Ministry may be at risk, but on balance I think that the Standing Committee's decision was right.
The right hon. Gentleman has largely met us on the matters on which he gave assurances in Standing Committee, but it is not without importance that there has been a change of attitude by the Government in one respect. In November, 1960, when he was Minister of Education, Lord Eccles said:
… there is bound to be some delay because I found when talking to people in this service that they were generally agreed that a new Act could not come into full operation until the reviews of local authority boundaries have been completed".
I am not quarrelling with the right hon. Gentleman's action, but I would quarrel with the lack of purpose in reviewing local government boundaries. I fully support what was so clearly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy). There is a danger in dealing with matters like this ad hoc and filching from an authority a power without considering the general question of local government responsibility. The difficulties of a small authority could be aggravated by taking away particular powers. The proper way to tackle the problem—this should have been done more expeditiously—would be to consider the proper arrangement of local government.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is adopting the wrong approach. He ought to accept that Parliament has placed the burden upon him of ensuring

that we have an efficient national library service provided by local authorities. In reviewing the responsibility of local authorities he should be guided by standards. That would have been a much more effective way to deal with the problem. Had he taken out the reference to numbers and made this depend on his new responsibility we should not have had this categorisation of authorities by population and size. This again may be considered in another place, but so far the right hon. Gentleman stuck to a number and it was not the number provided by the Report. It would have been far better had he accepted the argument advanced by my hon. Friend. He has considerably improved the provisions and given safeguards for which hon. Members asked.

Sir E. Boyle: I wish, by leave of the House, to reply to two or three points which have been made. Naturally enough the debate on this important Amendment to an important Clause has covered to some extent ground which was covered during the debates on Second Reading and in Committee. I make no complaint about that. Clause 6 gave the most concern to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee during the early stages of our discussions on this Bill.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) asked about the definition of "other relevant matters". I will mention one. It was referred to during the Committee stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth). He mentioned the White Paper on local government functions and its reference to the fact that responsibility should be entrusted to the district councils. The White Paper said that these councils were necessarily in closer touch with the people they serve than a county council might be. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument, I am sure that it will be adduced in discussions on the future of the smaller authorities. That sort of consideration will have to be decided when the time comes, and I cite it as an example of what is meant by "other relevant matters".

Mr. Blackburn: As Chairman of a Standing Committee, I often hear Ministers objecting to Amendments because the language is imprecise and not clear. In this case I think the wording is imprecise.

Sir E. Boyle: We took trouble over this. I think that the words,
…any likely changes in the area and population of the borough or urban district…",
are a reasonable digest of some of the much longer Amendments which we considered in the Standing Committee. I have explained why the words "other relevant matters" have been included.
I wish to come now to what I might call without offence the last ditch stand of the West Riding of Yorkshire against having a population criterion at all. I speak with diffidence in reply to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper). He will remember what happened once before when I referred in complimentary terms to Castleford and the row I got into. I think that if the library service is as good as the physical education in their primary schools. I agree that it is a service which has to be considered most carefully. During the Second Reading debate and in Committee I explained why we had a population criterion. I do not think that I need quote all I said on that occasion, if only because it has been quoted by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy).
The hon. Member referred to my quotation from the Roberts Committee's Report. I think that there are only two sentences of which I need remind the House. I pointed out the words in the Report which have been quoted tonight:
…the public library service is not maintained, as many other local services are maintained, at a cost strictly proportionate to population,
I said:
… I assure my hon. Friends that if a really good service is being provided at high cost, I am sure that the Minister of the day will not necessarily condemn it,
I also said on Second Reading, and this is a justification for having the population criterion:
I also suspect that we are moving into a period when it is going to be increasingly difficult for many small authorities to provide the full range of library services that are going to be demanded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 1280–1.]
I believe that to be true, and it would be going right away from the principle of the Roberts Report if we tried to operate the Bill without any population criterion at all.
Hon. Members are correct in saying that the 40,000 figure itself is not in the Roberts Report, but, as the Joint Under Secretary pointed out fairly in Committee, a number of bodies—not just the County Councils Association but a number of educational bodies—have recommended the 40,000 figure, for example, the Association of Education Committees, whose members include both county councils and county boroughs, the Association of Chief Education Officers, the National Union of Teachers and the Workers Educational Association. So we were not without considerable support in going for this 40,000 figure.
We have considered Clause 6 very fully. I am glad that outside the West Riding of Yorkshire there is a majority opinion of the view that the Amendment does justice to many of the points raised upstairs. It is not the intention of the Government that at present any further Amendment should be made in another place. After all the time and thought we have given to the issue of striking a balance fairly between county and borough and taking into account the relevant factors for the future and possible effects of local government reviews and all these factors summed up in the Amendment, I hope that we shall be able to settle on these words which have been so fully considered.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 23, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 28, leave out "(1) or".

In line 29, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 34, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In page 6, line 2, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 6, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Clause 8.—(RESTRICTION ON CHARGES FOR LIBRAR FACILITIES.)

Amendment made: In page 7, line 5, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That Proceedings on Government Business be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, in page 7, line 12, at the end to insert:
that where under section 7(1) above the authority is under a duty to make facilities for borrowing available to a person the authority shall not charge that person for borrowing—".
This Amendment deals with the "aunt" of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth), who was the subject of a good deal of discussion in Committee. My hon. Friend's fear was about a person who might wish to use the library near the place where she shopped, which might be outside the area of the authority where she lived. There might be no arrangements for inter-availability of tickets between the two authorities. The neighbouring authority, which at present can charge her for borrowing books, might not let her continue to use the library if that power to charge were withdrawn. The Amendment enables the library authority to make a charge for lending books to persons not resident in its area. The subsection as amended, therefore, deals with the fears which were expressed by my hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that the Amendment must not be taken as weakening the fundamental principle of the Bill that there should normally be no charge for borrowing books from a public library. The Secretary of State, in common with the local authority associations, hopes that there will be a steady extension of the existing arrangements for the inter-availability of borrowers' tickets and, where this is not possible, for inter-authority adjustment in respect of the borrowers who have good reason to use a library which is not within the area of their own authority. There may, nevertheless, be a few cases in which there are no such arrangements for inter-availability of tickets in which the home authority might consider that in view of

its own service, it would be unreasonable for it to pay another authority whose library a borrower wished to use. In such cases it might be unreasonable to deny the borrower the right to use the library in question if he or she were prepared to pay a charge which the authority for that library thought it reasonable to demand.
I do not expect that this Amendment would affect large numbers of people, but, on reflection, my right hon. Friend has accepted the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, and I hope that the Committee will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: May I tell my hon. Friend that my aunt is very grateful.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(CONTRIBUTIONS AND GRANTS.)

Amendment made: In page 7, line 26, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Clause 10.—(DEFAULT POWERS OF MINISTER.)

Amendments made: In page 7, line 32, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 36, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, in line 39, to leave out from beginning to "is" in line 41 and to insert
and, after causing a local inquiry to be held into the matter, the Secretary of State".
The effect of the Amendment is to require that a local inquiry must be held before the Secretary of State concludes that a library authority has failed to carry out its duty relating to the public library service and before he makes an order declaring the authority to be in default and imposing requirements for the removal of the default. The action which can be taken under the Clause may be drastic, and it is, therefore, accepted that it ought to be preceded by a local inquiry.

Mr. Willey: I rise only to say that, as I indicated in our discussion on the


first new Clause, we welcome the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 5, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, in page 8, line 16, after "district" to insert:
with a population less than 40,000".
Would it be convenient to the House to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in line 19?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if the House agrees.

Mr. Chataway: These Amendments deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) during the debate in Committee on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". The effect of these Amendments is that, on the dissolution of a joint board under the Clause because of failure to comply with an Order requiring it to remove a default in the performance of its duties, the council of a borough or urban district with a population of over 40,000 comprised in the board will revert automatically to being a library authority, whereas, as the subsection was previously drafted, it rested with the Secretary of State to decide whether it should again exercise library functions. This will continue to be the position in the case of boroughs and urban districts with populations less than 40,000.
I said in Committee that my right hon. Friend was prepared to accept the Amendment, and I believe that it fully meets the arguments then advanced by the hon. Member.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 19, after "board", insert:

"with a population less than 40,000".—[Mr. Chataway.]

In line 20, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 25, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 28, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 34, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 41, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 42, leave out first "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 1 to 4.
This is a rather quaint technical Amendment made necessary by the appointment of the Secretary of State for Education and Science in place of the former Minister. This arises because Section 290 of the 1933 Act, which contains provisions relating to the conduct and expenses of local inquiries, applies when a Secretary of State is authorised to hold an inquiry relating to the functions of a local authority. Now that we have a Secretary of State for Education, it is unnecessary to include in the Bill a subsection making the provisions of Section 290 applicable to inquiries held under it. So the change in Ministerial arrangements means that we can lose four lines of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS AS TO TRANSFERS OF OFFICERS, ASSETS AND LIABILITIES.)

Amendments made: In page 10, line 1, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 11, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Clause 12.—(PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE OF MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES.)

Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, in page 10, line 16, to leave out "being a library authority".
It might be for the convenience of the House if we discuss with this Amendment the Amendments in lines 21, 28 and 29.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is agreeable to the House.

Sir E. Boyle: These Amendments are all on the same point. The Clause, as amended in Committee, enables any library authority to provide and maintain a museum or art gallery and any


other authority which already maintains a museum to go on doing so, but it does not empower other authorities to provide them. The first three Amendments enable these other authorities to provide museums or art galleries with the consent of the Secretary of State.
The fourth Amendment, in line 29, enables them, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to take over an existing museum or art gallery from another authority which wishes to give it up. These Amendments give effect to the intention of an Amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth), and they also meet the intention of similar Amendments tabled by other hon. Members. I said that I would look at this matter before the next stage, in consultation with the local authority associations. I have now done this and the Amendments are on lines supported by all the local authority associations and the Museums Association.
The only thing I should add is this. The Museums Association has drawn my attention to the importance of being sure that a local authority which proposes to provide a museum really has the financial resources adequately to maintain it. This seems only good sense, and this is the reason for the emphasis in the Amendments on the consent of the Secretary of State, because this is a point the Secretary of State would wish to take into account in considering any such proposal. He will also wish to consider the relationship of the museum to any other in the area. This was noted in the Standing Commission's Survey. The Commission expressed the hope that local authorities would develop arrangements for cooperating with each other.
The Clause, as amended, extends to parishes as well as all other local authorities. There may exceptionally be small—and it is a pity that the West Riding contingent is not present just now—collections of, for example, furniture of a parochial interest. It is reasonable that a parish council should be able to take responsibility for that, if it wishes, when no other body can be found to do so. Some parishes are well able to maintain a museum. I do not think that many such authorities will wish to provide museums, but the Government agree

that it would be unfortunate if the Bill were passed without any provision being made for parish authorities to be able to put forward applications and for the Government to consider them.
The Amendments may help some voluntary museums which might otherwise be unable to carry on for lack of any local authority being able and willing to take them over. The Amendments do not only meet a point raised in Standing Committee but will improve the Bill.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I am certain that we did a good morning's work in Standing Committee on 30th April. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend has obviously considered the point which was then made. I am equally certain that the Amendments will be of great benefit to the Bill, will improve it, and I am particularly pleased to see that parishes have been included. My right hon. Friend is right to have put the whole matter of non-library authorities starting museums under the umbrella of the Secretary of State. This is an excellent thing to have done and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the way he has reacted to our discussion in Standing Committee.

Mr. Willey: I join in welcoming the Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in Standing Committee he expressed some doubt about parish councils, and I am not upset that his doubt has been resolved.

Mr. O'Malley: I, too, welcome the Amendments, for they will allow local authorities which are not library authorities to maintain museums or art galleries. I hope that the Secretary of State will give advice and seek to initiate activities of this kind by local authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 21, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
Provided that a local authority not being a library authority and not already maintaining a museum or art gallery under this section shall not provide a museum or art gallery thereunder without the consent of the Secretary of State; and that consent may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit, and he may at any time vary or revoke any of the conditions.

In line 28, leave out "subsection (2) above" and insert "this section".

In line 28, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 29, leave out "library authority" and insert:
other local authority empowered to maintain it".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Clause 14.—(ANNUAL REPORT.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 41, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Clause 15.—(COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 1, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Clause 16.—(BYELAWS.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 12, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Clause 18.—(EXPENSES OF COUNTY COUNCILS.)

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, in page 11, line 41, at the end to insert:
(2) A condition imposed in relation to a local authority under the proviso to section 12(1) above may require the authority to give consent under the preceding subsection.
The House has accepted Amendments to Clause 12 which enable any local authority, with the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend, to provide a museum. This Amendment enables the Secretary of State, as a condition of his approval, to require the authority to pay the rate required for the county museum service. As it left the Standing Committee Clause 18 gave any authority which maintains a museum the right to opt out of paying the county museum rate. A safeguard is clearly needed if more authorities are authorised to provide museums, otherwise the whole cost of the museum maintained by a county council might fall on a smaller and smaller sector of the ratepayers. That would not be just if the museum maintained by the county council served the whole county.
There might be circumstances in which it was appropriate for a county district not to pay the county museum rate; for example, if it was maintaining a museum of its own which drew people from the

rest of the county, the cost of that service to the rest of the county would possibly exceed any rate that the county district might be called upon to pay to aid the county council museum. There may be other cases where the museum is purely local, and provides no reason for exemption from the county museum rate. In between the two extremes, there are cases too complicated to deal with in detail by legislation.
The right course is for the authorities concerned to work out appropriate arrangements between themselves. This should be done before any application is made to the Secretary of State under Clause 12(1) and this Amendment will facilitate those arrangements.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(EXPENSES OF MINISTER, ETC.)

Amendment made: In page 12, line 12, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Clause 21.—(ISLES OF SCILLY.)

Amendments made: In page 12, line 26, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 32, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Clause 22.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendment made: In page 13, leave out line 14.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Clause 23.—(SHORT TITLE, REPEAL, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, at the end to insert:
(3) In the proviso to section 94 of the Local Government Act 1933 inserted by section 10(1) of the Education Act 1946 (by virtue of which teachers in institutions maintained or assisted by a local education authority are excepted from disqualification from membership of local authority committees appointed for certain purposes), the following shall be substituted for paragraph (c):
(c) appointed under this Act for purposes connected with the execution of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964;
(4) In section 193(5) of the Local Government Act 1933 (which restricts the sums which can be required to be raised in any financial year to meet the expenses of a parish meeting), after the words "the adoptive Acts" there shall be inserted the words "or the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964"; and in


Schedule 1 to the Parish Councils Act 1957 (which specifies expenses of a parish council which are to be disregarded for the purposes of section 193(3) of the Local Government Act 1933), the following shall be substituted for paragraph 2:
2. Any expenditure under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964".
The Amendment proposes to insert in the Clause two new subsections. The first deals with the constitution of committees appointed by local authorities for the purpose of exercising their functions under the Bill. The Amendment substitutes the present Bill for a number of Acts which previously applied. The effect is to enable teachers to serve on library committees. The second subsection deals with the amount of the rates which may be levied in parishes and this equally does not change existing legislation. It merely ensures that it continues despite the passing of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 28, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Mr. Chataway.]

Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, in page 13, line 35, to leave out from "on" to the end of line 37 and to insert "1st April 1965".
The Amendment fixes 1st April, 1965, as the date on which the Act will come into force and meets the promise which I gave to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — New Schedule.—(MANAGEMENT OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF EXHIBITS.)

Payments into fund

1. No payment shall be made into the fund (hereinafter referred to as the "art fund") unless the payment is authorised or required to be made by the following provisions of this Schedule.

2.—(1) There may be paid into the art fund from the county fund or, as the case may be, the general rate fund such sums as the local authority determine, but, except with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government,—

(a) the aggregate of sums so paid in any financial year shall not exceed the product of a rate of one-fifth of a penny in the pound for the administrative area of the authority for that year;
(b) a sum shall not be so paid if the payment thereof would cause the balance

of the art fund to exceed the product of a rate of one penny in the pound for that area for that year.

(2) The above references to the product of a rate for an area shall, where there is more than one rating area within the area, be construed as references to the aggregate product of a rate of the amount in question for all rating areas within the area.

(3) The product of a rate of any amount for a rating area shall for the purposes of this paragraph be taken to be the product of a rate of that amount for that area ascertained, in the case of an area other than a county borough, in accordance with rules made for the purposes of section 9(2) of the Rating and Valuation Act 1925, or, in the case of a county borough, in accordance with rules made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the purposes of Part I of the Local Government Act 1958.

3. Where any object previously kept for exhibition in a museum or art gallery maintained by the local authority under section 12 of this Act is sold by the authority, and the proceeds of sale are not subject to any trust the terms of which prevent their being used for the purchase of other objects for exhibition either in that museum or gallery or in any other museum or art gallery for the time being so maintained, the proceeds of sale or any part thereof may be paid into the art fund.

Power of investment

4. Until it is required for the purposes of the art fund, money therein may be invested by the local authority in the like investments as trustees are for the lime being by law authorised to make, and for this purpose section 7 of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 (which applies the preceding sections of the Act to persons other than trustees having trustee investment powers) shall have effect as if this Act had been passed before that Act:

Provided that for the purpose of the making of investments by the authority under this paragraph, paragraph 9 of Part II of Schedule 1 to that Act (which specifies local authorities whose securities are to be authorised investments) shall not apply to the authority or to a joint board comprising the authority and established under section 5 of this Act.

5. Income arising from investments made under paragraph 4 above shall be carried to the county fund or the general rate fund, as the case may be, and an equivalent sum shall be paid from that fund into the art fund.

Application of foregoing provisions to joint boards

6. Where the local authority is a joint board established under section 5 of this Act—

(a) references in this Schedule to the county fund or general rate fund shall be construed as references to the general revenues of the joint board, and references to the administrative area of the local authority shall be construed as references to the library area of the joint board;
(b) the proviso to paragraph 4 above shall be treated as disapplying paragraph 9 of


Part II of Schedule 1 to the Trustee Investments Act 1961 in relation to the authorities constituting the joint board as well as in relation to the board itself.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, That the Schedule be read a Second time.
The Schedule really goes with the third of the new Clauses which we were talking about earlier. Perhaps without getting out of order I could say to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) that I am not sure that I was not too pessimistic when she asked me about the power of the county council to contribute to a fund, because Clause 13(a) empowers a local authority to contribute towards expenditure incurred by any person in providing or maintaining a museum. I will ascertain that point later, but I may have been too gloomy in the advice which I gave to the hon. Lady.
The new Schedule has provisions for the management of a fund established under Clause 3. There is provision for a maximum contribution in any financial year and I can tell the House that although it may seem that this is tightly drawn, nevertheless these limitations are similar to those in local Acts, save that these name a sum as the maximum balance of the fund. To adapt this to the circumstances of different authorities we have in the Schedule expressed the maximum as the product of 1d. rate
The Schedule will enable any proceeds from the sale of any picture or museum object to be paid into the fund instead of being credited to the county fund or the general rate in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule authorises the investment of any money in the fund under the Trustee Investments Act, 1961.

Mrs. White: We are a little concerned about the Schedule. It seems to us to be rather tightly drawn, and to limit the amount that may be paid into the fund to one-fifth of 1d. rate seems to us to be unduly restrictive for some local authorities. We are also concerned about the matter of the balance and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a little more explanation. The Schedule provides in that

a sum shall not be paid if the payment thereof would cause the balance of the art fund to exceed the product of a rate of one penny in the pound for that area for that year.
Suppose that a sale of a picture has been made and that money has been added to the art fund. Does this affect the balance and therefore the amount which the local authority can pay into the fund? There may be a situation in which for one reason or another the authorities in charge of the museum or art gallery may have decided to sell one of its pictures, possibly with a view to purchasing something else, perhaps, of a similar nature but of better quality, and it may for a short time have in the fund a balance which would bring it above the amount permitted in paragraph 2(1,b). But this might be purely temporary because it might be planning to spend that money.
We are not very clear about whether it is desirable to have the limitations of either paragraph 2(1,a) or paragraph 2(1,b), but perhaps more particularly 2(1,b). Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this sort of restriction will not have the effect which some of us think it may have? We may have misread the proposed Schedule, but we should like an assurance that this kind of top limit restriction will not frustrate the general purposes of the Schedule.

Sir E. Boyle: I hope that I can give the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) the assurance for which she asks. The limits of paragraph 2 are based on the experience of local Acts. While it may seem that these limits are low, we must remember that the average 1d. rate today is worth about the same as was 2¾d. on the valuation lists in force before 1st April, 1963. That is to say, they are not perhaps quite as narrow as they seem when one bears in mind the effects of the last revaluation.
The other thing of which I should like to remind the hon. Lady is this. The payment into the fund of the proceeds of sale of any object under paragraph (3) will not reduce the amount which may be paid into the fund out of the county fund or general rate fund under paragraph 2(1). I recognise that the House has not had very long to consider this Schedule.


I will consider the remarks which have been made about the Schedule and see whether any further attention needs to be given to this part of the Bill in another place.

Mr. Willey: Perhaps the Minister will give the further assurance that he will consult the local authorities about this, particularly those with experience in this matter.

Sir E. Boyle: We have engaged in some consultation and have tried to follow the experience of local Acts. I am, however, ready to bear in mind the anxieties which have been expressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1.—(SUPERANNUATION AND OTHER BENEFITS IN CASES OF TRANSFER ETC.)

Amendments made: In page 16, line 5, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".

In line 16, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2.—(REPEALS.)

Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move in page 17, line 20, column 3, at the beginning to insert:
In section 305, in the definition of 'The Adoptive Acts' the words 'and (e) The Public Libraries Acts 1892 to 1919'.
This distinctly technical Amendment has the effect of removing the Public Libraries Acts, 1892 to 1919, from the definition of "The Adoptive Acts" in Section 305 of the Local Government Act, 1933. As the Bill is not adoptive, we thought it right, for drafting reasons, to specify the Bill in addition to the Adoptive Acts in Section 193(5) and to delete the Public Libraries Acts from the list of Adoptive Acts in Section 305. How many people would have noticed this omission if we had not proposed this Amendment, I am not sure. I commend the Amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Title

Amendment made: In line 3, leave out "Minister of Education" and insert "Secretary of State".—[Sir E. Boyle.]

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The proceedings in Committee falsified the hope which I expressed on Second Reading that this could be described as a relatively uncontroversial Measure. There has been controversy, although often not of a sort which divides hon. Members along party political lines. Our proceedings might have surprised some of the more extreme critics of the House of Commons. Certainly, the Executive could hardly have been subjected to a more thorough scrutiny than it was on this Bill and many hon. Members, on both sides, could hardly have proved more effective in that probing process.
One of the more important results of the Committee discussions has been that my right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to a number of extra safeguards for those smaller authorities which feel themselves threatened. Already today, the House has again fully discussed the question of size. I hope, however, that hon. Members will not underrate the safeguards which have now been introduced. There is power to hold a public inquiry. The Secretary of State is required to take account of the local changes in the area or population of a borough or urban district, and this means giving consideration to likely local government reforms. My right hon. and learned Friend has to be satisfied that the withdrawal of library powers from a borough or urban district council will result in improved services to the inhabitants.
In addition to that, application for renewal of library powers can now be rejected only by means of a Statutory Instrument subject to the negative Resolution procedure. It was in this connection that the Executive were most clearly seen to have limits to their persuasive powers, at least when they were exercised by me. My right hon. Friend has subsequently indicated to hon. Members that in all the circumstances he will not seek to have this provision for the negative Resolution procedure deleted.
I cannot pretend to be without misgivings on that decision of the Committee. There is danger, as, I think, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) recognised, that the House could be faced with an unduly large number of Orders. I hope, however, that authorities and hon. Members will accept, as the Committee accepted, that the purpose of the Bill is to raise standards and that this will inevitably involve a reduction in the number of library authorities. It will not be easy for the smaller authorities to reach the standards described by the Working Party's Report. A more effective local co-operation than has hitherto been seen will be needed, and the smaller authority wishing to retain independent library powers will have to face a higher expenditure per head, as the Working Party showed, than is required from a larger authority.
Another and contentious matter has been that of costs. My right hon. Friend pointed on Second Reading to the upward trend in recent years of expenditure, both capital and recurrent, on the library service. The Bill will certainly lead to a substantial further increase in expenditure on libraries. It was this prospect that led some to hope for an increased revenue from charges.
As to books, the principle of a free library service is retained in the Bill. My right hon. Friend dealt fully with this subject in Committee, but perhaps I may remind the House of two of the practical arguments against any general introduction of charges for this service, which has from its inception been free. If a charge is made for a library ticket, it may be substantial enough to deter the reader whose initial purpose is to borrow only one book; and it is often from borrowing just one book, perhaps about their hobbies, that many people are led on to more reading and to greater use of their local library.
If, on the other hand, a charge is levied on each book lent, this must provide a strong incentive to an authority to spend its money on that class of fiction which has the quickest turnover and is the greatest revenue earner. The Bill does not, therefore, provide for any charge on books, except in the specific limited circumstances described in Clause 8.
For the lending of gramophone records, pictures, films, and so on—services which some authorities provide and some do not—a charge may be made. This has seemed to be a worthwhile amendment, because, for one thing, there is evidence that without revenue from charges, some authorities might suspend this service.
A more major change effected in Committee is the freedom now granted to authorities to charge for entry to museums and art galleries. Earlier today, the House discussed this change in some detail.
I have referred to the increased spending on libraries which is likely to result from the Bill, and I recognise that the prospect of this increased rate-borne expenditure is relevant to the review which is now being carried out by the Government into the proper balance between financing from rates and from taxes. Compared with total local government spending the sums here involved are not large, but any likely increase such as this must be taken into account when considering what burden the ratepayer can in future years be expected to shoulder.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have at times suggested that this should be relevant expenditure for general grant. We have taken the view that libraries remain essentially a local government service, but if one were to make the libraries relevant expenditure for the general grant it would only be logical to go a great deal further than does this Bill in making provision for control to be exercised from the centre. We have preferred to follow in this respect the recommendations of the Roberts Committee.
In commending the Bill to the House I should like again to pay tribute to Sir Sydney Roberts and his Committee. Aspects of their Report have come in for sharp criticism at times, but the Bill, as I say, is largely founded on their work. Under it, new duties are laid on the authorities and the Secretary of State; there is provision for greater co-ordination between public and non-public libraries; there are here the means to provide a better and a more even library service in this country. As the Roberts Committee showed, increased educational provision has had an enormous effect upon library services. Educational and

recreational demands on libraries are inevitably changing and inevitably growing.
The Bill paves the way for a big improvement in the public library service in tune with modern educational advance, and I hope that the House may now give it its Third Reading.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Irving: This is an important Bill which gives great opportunity for raising the standards in the public library service to meet both existing needs and the needs which we can foresee in the future, and, especially as it has been improved in Committee, I think that most people will welcome the Bill.
The Bill, however, in my view, has two characteristics which distinguish it from most other legislation dealing with local government. The first is in giving the Government supervision while not providing any Treasury support in return for this supervision. This may well prove in the end to be the weakness of the Bill, because while the Minister, in the terms of the Bill, can take over the powers of an urban district or non-county borough, it is inconceivable that he could take over the powers of a county council or a county borough council, arid in this sense he has no sanction at all, if those authorities fail to come up to standards. Enforcement would be very difficult indeed.
The second characteristic of the Bill is its very great vagueness on some of its most important aspects. Standards and supervision are two examples of this. Therefore, the success of the Bill will largely depend on the spirit of the Minister who is to operate the Bill when it becomes law. So far, we have only had one clue as to what this spirit will be. We have under the Bill the appointment of a library adviser, and yet I think that it is true to say without exaggeration that the terms of this appointment have dismayed the whole of the library profession.
I do not know whether the appointment has yet been made. If it has been made, I do not know who has been appointed. I wish whoever is appointed, or is to be appointed, well in the appointment. But this means that the library profession in this respect, fears the worst, because the post has been advertised on


the scale of £2,237 to £2,572. Librarians have long wished to have parity with the teaching profession. Not only have they been refused this, but in this refusal they have been affronted by the terms of this appointment. There are 486 members of the education inspectorate who are on terms of appointment higher than the senior library adviser who will advise the Minister on the operation of the Bill. I accept that there may be a difference between an education inspectorate and a library inspectorate, but I cannot understand why this differential should be so wide as to put 500 people, to say nothing of the 40 or more in Wales, in the education inspectorate above the highest appointment to be made in the Ministry in respect of the library service.
The other unfortunate aspect of the Bill, perhaps the major weakness, is the failure to give any guidance about one of the most crucial aspects of the library service, one referred to in almost every report before the Bill came before the House. The success of the new enterprise depends almost entirely on an adequate supply of properly trained and qualified staff. On this, the Bill gives no guidance. We are still left very much in doubt about the Minister's intentions in this respect. Unless this is made good, the whole of an otherwise excellent Bill cannot operate in the way it is intended to.
Therefore, while this is an excellent Bill, it depends more on the spirit of the Minister operating it than on its terms, and so far in this respect I cannot think that the prospect for the future is very rosy.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Duffy: I agree with the Joint Under-Secretary of State that the Bill was subjected to keen scrutiny in the Committee. I was pleased to hear him say that he thought the scrutiny was most helpful. Looking back over the short time that I have been a Member of Parliament, I thought that I saw the House at its best during the Committee stage of the Bill.
I welcome the Bill, especially on the ground of timing. I also welcome it generally on the ground of character, although the Minister and the Joint

Under-Secretary will know from what I have said in Committee and tonight that it disappoints me over Clause 6. I appreciate what the Minister is trying to do. I welcome his attempts at general supervision. I know that he is trying to reconcile the need for centrally imposed standards with local autonomy, which is difficult to do. But I do not think that he will convince Ilkley, Skip-ton, Bingley, Heckmondwike, Rothwell and Normanton—I make no apology for reciting these West Riding names again—that he has succeeded or is likely to.
I do not wish to appear parochial. I favour reform. Generally speaking, I am in favour of larger units rather than smaller units, but I think that the Minister should be chary about undermining the status of existing authorities by taking from them functions which they are performing with distinction. I do not think that new Clause 1 will wholly reassure the deprived authorities.
I am not indifferent to standards. I think that the Minister must be as exacting in his application to the small authorities as to the large authorities. Yet I fear that because of Clause 6, which worries me, he may set about imposing those standards on the small authorities simply because they are small, and he may appear to them to be doing it with more relish because they are small.
Yet the chief difficulty, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) pointed out, is money, and the money will not be provided by any amount of pruning and regrouping. It is inconceivable that the public library system will be given the range and quality our changing society will require in the years to come unless we manage to provide new methods of finance. I do not think it can be done by existing methods and the Bill offers no relief.
On the contrary, the Minister claims wider powers and offers no money in return. The proposed expenditure under the Bill is hopelessly inadequate. The Minister will have to provide positive and imaginative leadership as well as general supervision if he is to compensate for the lack of money.
This means that, as time goes on, Clause 10 may become the most important part of the Bill if the percentage of the population that uses our libraries is to grow to more than 30 per cent.


Here again, I echo something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dart-ford: if library functions are to be properly fulfilled the libraries will have to be properly staffed, and unless we provide proper conditions of employment we cannot expect to see an efficient service.
Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill. It is a very good Bill—perhaps a little below my hon. Friend's description of it as "excellent"—but I regard it as a privilege to be associated with it during its passage through the House.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Willey: I join with my hon. Friends in expressing our appreciation of the Bill. It seems quite a long time since we welcomed it on Second Reading. It has been improved since then. I thank the Minister of State and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for aiding us in the improvement and I am delighted to feel that when it goes to another place they can be encouraged by the Joint Under-Secretary of State's expectations of further improvement.
But I am very disturbed to hear what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving). I appeal to the Minister to impress upon the Department the need to be much more constructive, more positive, in matters like this. The Department was severely criticised by the Albemarle and Wolfenden Reports and should be much more forthcoming and positive about all these matters which aid and support education. It is discouraging if we do not get that more positive view.
We have pressed the view that there should be an inspectorate. I thought that it was agreed, whatever differences there might be about an inspectorate, that the Department would respond to this and would have a strong section which would encourage and promote the library service.
There are two main factors about the growth of the service as we envisage it about which, I am sure hon. Members will concede, we did not really get satisfaction. If the service is to be improved more money will have to be spent on it. It is unfortunate that we have not had a sufficient response from the Government on that cardinal question. I do not dispute that this is a local

government service, but we are actually now providing a national service through the local authorities and we must consider more seriously the question of financing.
The second factor concerns the professional staffs. We have not had sufficient appreciation of their difficulties nor an assurance that they will be remedied. We have not had sufficient assurance that the full financial difficulties of staffing and promoting the service are properly understood by the Government.
We all welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is to be responsible for the library service. As the Bill leaves the House, we should emphasise again that the library is crucial to education. It is the key to education, certainly at the higher and further levels. More than that, the public library is also very often the bridge, the instrument, by which many people, particularly mature students, gain their opportunities in education.
For these reasons, we welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and the Joint Under-Secretary have helped us to improve the Bill. The Roberts Committee can at last feel some consolation in that the Bill is now leaving this House and will soon be considered by another place.

10.51 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for his remarks and all hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, who have been involved in the passage of the Bill. I am very glad that we have been able to debate it during this last Session of this Parliament It has been on the sidelines for some time, but I could not give longer notice of it because it was uncertain, even until just before 5th February, whether we would be able to get it in this Session. I am very glad that we have been able to do so and I share in the tributes paid to the Roberts Committee. Perhaps it is poetic justice that my right 'hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who appointed the Roberts Committee in 1957, should have returned to Curzon Street just in time to see the Bill on the Statute Book.
This is an important Measure which definitely lays on the Secretary of State responsibility for this service. The Bill says that
From the commencement of this Act it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to superintend, and promote the improvement of the public library service provided by local authorities in England and Wales. …
That is one of his duties and we have discussed how information on the progress of those duties should be given to Parliament.
As has been said, improvement can be made only by money, and hon. Members will remember that in Committee I said that we faced the possibility of an increase of £14 million a year on the current £23 million, rather more than 50 per cent., to bring the libraries up to the standards suggested. I should not like to deny that the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to raise standards in public libraries, will involve greater expenditure.
I have two comments on that. The first is on the question of how we shall urge this greater expenditure. I said on Second Reading that I had no doubt that, when the time came, the Minister of the day would send out a circular in which he would have to go into great detail to set out the criteria. I pointed out that we had already had the Bour-dillon Working Party's Report on Standards, and I said that I envisaged a circular setting out criteria close to those suggested by the Working Party. It seems essential that they should be as objective and as clear as possible.
Secondly, I recognise that the Government are not directly providing the extra £14 million, but this must all be seen in the context of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the balance between central and local government finance. When, in due course, we come to take decisions about that balance, these by no means negligible sums of money now being put on local finance as an extra burden will obviously be one of the many factors needing to be taken into account.
I thought that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) was a little too pessimistic. He rather reminded

me of the time when I moved from Curzon Street to Richmond Terrace. Someone who is greatly respected in the education world said to me, "You are changing your job and you will, therefore, come across a completely new set of grievances". I said, "No doubt I shall come across grievances in due course, but I do not agree that this is the most important or immediate matter with which I shall be concerned."
Of course, the Bill has staffing implications for the local libraries and for the Department. I said on Second Reading that I hoped that notice would be taken of the advice given to library authorities to pay librarians adequately and, above all, to provide them with career prospects. The Bill will clearly have staffing implications for the Department. I have said that the post of library adviser in the Department, which had hitherto been made on a temporary basis, had now been made permanent. We cannot stop there. This must be the basis for further action.
I would not tonight wish to comment on a particular salary offered. I do not think it would be right to do so, but I assure the House that we shall at the Department fully recognise the implications of the Bill in the work of the Department as a whole.
I conclude by echoing what has been said about the importance of public libraries to the whole education service. We shall surely need to consider in years to come not only students as we traditionally name them, but the very rapidly growing section of the public, both men and women, who mean to gain qualifications of one kind or another. I believe that the growth in the number of qualifications offered and the growth of the numbers seeking qualifications—what might be called the "Robbins penumbra"—may be infinitely greater than any of us supposed. In this context public libraries are of great importance and this Measure will go forward as not the least of the Measures passed in this last Session of the present Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

POLICE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 52.—(IMPERSONATION, &C.)

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 19, at end insert:
(2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.

10.58 p.m.

The Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment would make it an offence for a person to wear police uniform or uniform having the appearance of police uniform in circumstances where he might so closely resemble a police officer as to be likely to be mistaken for one. The Joint Under-Secretary promised in Standing Committee in this House that he would give consideration to this point when a working party had completed its examination. I think that the matter had been raised by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), who took a very interested part in the proceedings of the Standing Committee. Now that we have the conclusions of the working party it seems desirable to include this new provision in the Bill.
If I may paraphrase it, this new subsection will make it an offence for a person to wear a police-style uniform if the combined effect of the uniform itself and what the person is doing and all other relevant circumstances will be that he is likely to be mistaken for a policeman. This danger had arisen, as is common knowledge, in connection with some of the private security organisations, but it might arise in difficult connections even with individuals. I think that the House will agree that it is desirable that we should seek to minimise the risk of someone being mistaken for being a person who possesses the power of a constable. The private security organisations will need, I think rightly, to consider whether the uniform of their guards might bring them within the scope of the new offence, but, let it be stressed that provided their guards are so clothed that they could not

be mistaken for police officers they will be quite unaffected by this Amendment.
I hope that the House will agree that this is a satisfactory conclusion to an interesting discussion we had in Standing Committee on the Bill.

Miss Alice Bacon: I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for inserting this sub-section, because, as he says, it does meet some of the doubts expressed by some of my hon. Friends during the passage of the Bill through this House.
I appreciate that it has been very difficult indeed to get the right wording to meet all the points that were raised, but I think now that this subsection (2) that we have on the Notice Paper is about right in the words which it uses.
I think it is very important that there should be no confusion in the minds of people as to who are policemen and who are not policemen. There has been a tendency hitherto for some of the private guards not only to look like policemen in that they have been wearing uniforms of identical colour to those of policemen, but to try to look exactly like policemen. This is not to criticise the work they have been doing, but I think it is very important that our policemen should not be confused with any other people during any other work.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I am pleased to see this Amendment to the Bill. As the Home Secretary said, some of us on this side were rather alarmed, as were some hon. Gentlemen opposite, at the growth of private security forces whose members were wearing uniforms which could well be thought by members of the public to be the uniforms of police constables.
I do not want to take up the time of the House except to say that this subsection (2), along with subsection (1) of Clause 52, meets the points raised in the Standing Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 64.—(INTERPRETATION, REPEALS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 41, at end insert:
(4) The Secretary of State may by order repeal or amend any provision in any local


Act, including an Act confirming a provisional order, or in any instrument in the nature of a local enactment under any Act, where it appears to him that that provision is inconsistent with, or has become unnecessary or requires modification in consequence of, any provision of this Act or corresponds to any provision repealed by this Act; and any statutory instrument made under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This new subsection is designed to give the Secretary of State a general power to repeal and amend local Acts in consequence of the provisions of this Bill.
As the House will appreciate, much of the existing law about police administration was laid down somewhat sketchily in nineteenth century statutes which are repealed by Section 10 of the Bill. From time to time, not unnaturally, these general provisions of the last century were filled out by the provisions of local Acts which may now be unnecessary or need modification if the Bill becomes law.
It is desirable that there should be power in the Secretary of State to carry out this tidying-up operation. I would like to give an assurance that the local authority which promoted the local Act will in all cases be consulted before the Secretary of State makes an Order under this new power.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 10.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Lords Amendment: In page 58, column 3, leave out lines 17 to 25 and insert:
Section 30.
Section 34(3)(c).
Section 66.
In section 78(1) the words 'either alone or jointly with the quarter sessions'.
Section 81(7) and (8).
Section 93.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
May I, at the same time, refer to the next two Amendments? They are all inter-connected.
This group of three Amendments will repeal the statutory provisions which require the appointment of standing joint committees, together with various provisions associated with them. The reason is that the Bill will transfer their police functions away from standing joint committees. Since the Bill was introduced an Amendment has been made in another Bill, the Administration of Justice Bill, which will transfer away the remaining functions of standing joint committees. The appropriate course to take, therefore, is to repeal the statutory provisions which require standing joint committees to be appointed.
Standing joint committees, which were first appointed ad hoc in 1888, have played for over three-quarters of a century a notable part in county administration, and I do not think that we should see their demise without that word of appreciation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 53, at end insert:


"7 &amp; 8 Eliz. 2.c. 38.
The Police Federation Act 1959
The whole Act.


9 &amp; 10 Eliz. 2. c.51.
The Police Federation Act 1961.
The whole Act."

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
If it is agreed, this Amendment will increase the number of Acts repealed by the Bill to 25, which is probably a good thing in itself in clearing the Statute Book. This will add to the repeals the Police Federation Acts of 1959 and 1961, which made minor changes in the constitution of the Federation, which had nevertheless to be done by legislation.
The Police Federation has been consulted over this change in the Bill and it is acceptable to it. The explanation is that the substance of these Acts will be repeated in regulations which are to be made under Clause 44, and when those regulations come into force there will be no need for the Acts to remain on the Statute Book. This most closely concerns the Police Federation itself, and I am in a position to say that the


Federation is quite content with this rearrangement.

Miss Bacon: How long will it be before we see the regulations under Clause 44? I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that the Police Federation agrees to this repeal, but I should like to be assured that the Federation approves of it wholeheartedly and thinks that the provisions would be better in regulations than in these two Acts.

Mr. Brooke: The Police Federation approves wholeheartedly of this and it is accepted in all quarters that it would be better to have it in regulations than that we should keep the Acts on the Statute Book. If further amendments are needed in the Federation's constitution, they can be made by further regulations. The matters concerned are relatively small. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that there is entire agreement that this is the right course to follow.

Question put and agreed to.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS BILL

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I would be grateful if the House will allow me to correct a mistake which I made earlier today on the Public Libraries and Museums Bill and to offer my apologies for what I did and, in particular, to apologise to the Minister of State for Education and Science, who confessed his public ignorance of the practice of the House when, in fact, he was right and I think that I was wrong.
I had in mind, when I stopped the Joint Under-Secretary moving a new Clause which stood in the name of the Minister, our rule which prevents hon. Members from moving new Clauses of which they have not personally given previous notice. That is overridden by our constitutional practice, which allows Ministers to act for each other. I respectfully apologise and make this apology now, before the harm I have done should go further.

The Minister of State for Education and Science (Sir Edward Boyle): I thank you for that explanation, Mr. Speaker. These rules and procedures will be fully implanted in the memory of those who were concerned in the incident

Mr. Speaker: And in mine.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) (MEASURES)

Resolved,
That the Clergy (Ordination and Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Measure 1964, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—[Sir J. Arbuthnot.]

ARMY ALLOWANCES (SEPARATED WIVES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.13 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I take this opportunity to raise the cases of certain wives in relation to allowances from their Service husbands from whom they are estranged, and, in particular, in regard to marriage allowances.
The Regulations under which the matter is administered are under the authority of the Royal Warrant, issued on 19th March, 1951, and while it is unnecessary for me to read the terms of that Warrant, I refer to the provision at the end, which states:
Provided always that Our Army Council shall be the sole administrators and interpreters of these Regulations, and shall in any matter not affecting the rates or quantities therein laid down, except where a temporary variation is expressly provided for by these Regulations, have power to alter them from time to time as may appear to them to be expedient.
I hope that the circumstances which I shall outline will enable those whose responsibility it is to consider the position favourably.
Under the Royal Warrant and the terms of the Regulations dealing with allowances, we see that the first Regulation, in paragraph 2, states:
Marriage allowance to which all eligible married officers and men will normally be entitled will be in aid of the provision they will make from their pay for the maintenance of their families.
Further on, paragraph 12 reads:
Marriage allowance is an emolument of the officer…
Perhaps the most critical is paragraph 117(a), which reads:
An officer or other rank who is a widower, or who is estranged from his wife…


will be entitled to marriage allowance at the full rate if he is voluntarily maintaining one or more children ".
It is really that point which I wish to outline and elaborate, because it has actually occurred in relation to a particular officer and his wife, whose names I do not think I need mention. I ought to say straight away that this position in the matter of marriage allowance does not arise where an order has been made by a court of legal competence in the United Kingdom. Provisions are laid down in Sections 150 to 152 of the Army Act, 1955, dealing with that position.
The circumstances which have brought this specific case to my notice are that the wife wrote to me, informing me that she and her husband were in Malaya and that a decree nisi had been granted to the husband by the courts in Malaya. The wife may, unwisely, have gone to Malaya instead of remaining in this country, but she was anxious to obtain a rescinding of the decree nisi and so she went to Malaya. There she found that her husband was living with another woman and two children and was not prepared to pay any money to his legal wife for a period of more than a year, although he was drawing full allowances, including the marriage allowance.
Advice was given to this lady, the wife, to the effect that she should take legal proceedings in England; but this advice was not very useful in view of the fact that both parties were in Malaya. At the same time, it is fair to say that the relationship of the parties had become rather complicated, and many of the issues could be resolved only with considerable difficulty. However, the amounts involved were quite substantial. The marriage allowance was 28s. 6d. a day, and the allowance for accommodation varied between 42s. 6d. and 68s. 0d., depending on whether the officer was accompanied by his wife or not. This allowance was paid to him, and, although I am not dealing with the accommodation allowance, this helped to add up to a substantial sum of money. If this man had been unaccompanied, he would have got approximately one-third of the rate he was, in fact, receiving.
So, the effect of this Regulation, as interpreted by the War Office, was that, in spite of all the problems which existed in this particular case, the husband was

deemed to be keeping the children and nothing could be given to the wife; in other words, the husband could continue to draw not only his marriage allowance but also his "accompanied officer" allowance while in Malaya.
The result has been that it has been impossible for the wife to have her case properly conducted in Malaya, and in spite of a generous offer of an indulgence passage by the War Office this lady is naturally unwilling to have her two chidren in the custody of her husband, to say nothing of a subsequent decree nisi made against her, and against which she had no financial means to defend herself.
The reason I raise this matter is that paragraph 117(a) of the Regulations as at present drafted seems to me to contain the seeds of great unfairness to estranged wives. It lays it wide open to the husband who is serving overseas—and the difficulties in these matters arise specifically when the parties are out of this country, as very often happens with Service personnel—to provide for one child but not to make any provision at all for the wife and any other children, of whom there may be two or three, and yet at the same time continue to draw marriage allowance. This, in the case I have in mind, might have meant a different result in the divorce proceedings. I hope that consideration will be given by my hon. Friend to so amending the Regulations that marriage allowance will not be paid when a marriage has broken up.

11.23 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Kirk): My hon. Friend the Member for Alder-shot (Sir E. Errington) has raised a point of considerable interest on which he and I have corresponded for some time in connection with a particular case, but he has raised it tonight rather more on the principle of the matter than on the individual circumstances, though, of course, he has quite rightly illustrated the point he wished to make from the case about which we both know. Like him, I can see no point in mentioning names nor drawing any particular attention to the case, although I shall refer to it incidentally in what I have to say.
I am glad to have this opportunity of explaining to the House, even at this


late hour, our policy in the Ministry of Defence about allowances paid to an officer—and, indeed, to a soldier, because we make no distinction in principle between officers and soldiers in this matter—in respect of his wife and children.
Whilst, as I have said, I am glad to have the opportunity, and will explain as fully as I can, I hope to my hon. Friend's satisfaction, why we think that the allowance should be paid to the officer or soldier rather than to the wife—which, I am sure, is right—I should like at the outset to set on record my feeling that it is only in cases of individual dispute—and the cases where an officer and his wife are separated and are in dispute about the maintenance of the wife and the children of the marriage must, happily, be rare—that the trouble can arise. Cases like this are extremely distressing but, happily, they do not occur very often.
The important thing, as it seems to us, is not how the allowance is paid, but the fact that it is paid at all. In the vast majority of cases where there is a normal relationship between husband and wife and where, depending on the exigencies of the Service, they are, with their children, sharing a home, an officer's wife can have no more interest or wish to require that her husband's marriage allowance be paid direct to her than she can have to require the Army to pay his whole salary to her rather than to him. I agree that there are some who might like that to happen, but, in the main, the system works extremely well.
My hon. Friend has explained quite fairly the authority on which the allowances are paid. The authority is the Royal Warrant, and my hon. Friend has referred to the particular proviso which makes the Army Council, or the Army Board of the Defence Council as it now is, because it has inherited all these powers, to be the sole administrators and interpreters of these Regulations. We have the power to vary them, except in the matter affecting the rates or quantities, from time to time without reference to the House or indeed to anybody. We therefore have the power to do what my hon. Friend wishes us to do, and I would hope to try to convince

him that it is right that at this stage we should not use it.
Paragraph 124(a) of the Allowance Regulations states that
Married officers' marriage allowance will be paid direct to the officer, unless in time of war he elects otherwise.
This is the Government's directive as far as those of us who administer these regulations are concerned, and the Army Board's view is that marriage allowance should be issued to a married officer and, where possible, to the married soldier, and not direct to the wife. It is issued to be expended on the maintenance of his wife and, or, his children. I would emphasise the "or." Provided that he is maintaining one or other, and preferably both, it is right for him to receive the marriage allowance.
The marriage allowance can be, and is in some cases, currently paid to a widower with children, and would be paid to an officer to support his children where he was separated or divorced from his wife but remained responsible for the maintenance of the children of the marriage, which is the position in the case to which my hon. Friend has referred. This is stated in Allowance Regulations. It is issued for the maintenance of wife and children when a formal claim for it has been made. An officer is not compelled to claim it, although I think that it would be surprising if he did not.
The allowance is issued to married personnel to assist them in meeting their current family obligations. The precise expenses which it is intended to cover have not been laid down, but in part it is in lieu of the accommodation which the single officer or soldier is provided with in kind. A married man does not want this accommodation which he had when he was single. He does not want, for instance, to live in the officers' mess or sergeants' mess or barrack room. As a result, the Army saves a marginal amount on the fact that he does not take the accommodation which the Army can offer him. We do not find him a place in a mess or barrack room and, in return, we help him with the expense of his own home.
This point can be seen more clearly if we examine the circumstances in which the allowance was brought in. It was


introduced immediately after the war, in 1946, and replaced certain other specific rates, particularly the married rates of lodging, furniture, fuel and light allowance, so that it is in this respect, even more than in the respect which I have just mentioned, in large part what one might call a "living out" allowance.
A great deal of the difficulty which has arisen in this case—and it might arise in other cases—is that the expression "marriage allowance" is misleading. I have been beating my brains out in the last few days to think of another name which might more accurately describe what it is. It should be emphasised also that marriage allowance is paid to an officer only on certain conditions. He has to claim it and he has to expend the whole of the gross amount currently, without tax deduction, on the maintenance of his wife or children. In cases where officers or other ranks neglect without reasonable cause to maintain their wives or children, the Army Board or an authorised officer may order such a sum to be deducted from pay and appropriated towards the maintenance of the wife or the children as the Army Board or the authorised officer thinks fit. Such an order may be made whether an individual has claimed marriage allowance or not.
In assessing the amount which might be ordered, the rate of marriage allowance would not have significance other than to be included in the assessment of the individual's total emoluments. Again, therefore, on that provision, too, it would appear that marriage allowance is not specifically designed for the support of the wife but is considered to be part of the total emoluments of an officer made up to him in consideration of certain circumstances, of which the fact that he is married and has children is one.
This action can be taken under Section 151 of the Army Act, but it would be a serious step to take because it carries with it the public implication that an officer, or, indeed, a soldier, has failed to carry out his social and moral obligations towards his family and could not be persuaded to carry them out but could only be coerced into doing so. Such cases would, happily, be rare, because in normal circumstances a wife who felt that she had a claim against her husband on

the grounds that he was not maintaining her or her children would have the same right as any other civilian or Service wife of applying to a civil court for an order requiring her husband to make a contribution. We feel strongly that it is up to the husband and wife, if they possibly can, to sort out such a problem between themselves and for one partner or the other to invoke the aid of the courts if the problem cannot otherwise be resolved.
In normal circumstances, a wife has ready access to the courts. This is sufficient to protect her position. It is certainly true in this country, as, I am sure, my hon. Friend will agree. Only where access to the courts is impossible would we be justified in invoking Section 151 of the Army Act and compulsorily deducting part of an officer's income. Otherwise, we would find ourselves in the invidious position of trying to adjudicate between the husband and the wife, judging issues which were properly of their own concern or, if they could not solve them themselves, for a court to decide, and not matters which the Army should have to decide.
In this case, as my hon. Friend has said, the wife had recourse to the courts of Malaya. Indeed, she managed to persuade the courts there to set aside the earlier decree nisi on the grounds that it had been granted without her knowing anything about it. I believe that it happened when she was at home in England. In the circumstances, we felt that she had the proper recourse to the courts to which a wife is entitled and could have obtained maintenance if the courts had felt inclined to grant it to her.
As my hon. Friend has mentioned, the Army not only made the wife the offer, which still holds good, of a free passage home from Malaya should she wish it, but also paid out of regimental funds her fare from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur so that she could attend the second hearing in the divorce court. My hon. Friend will, I think, agree that other than this problem of the interpretation of the marriage allowance, we have done what we can, without taking sides in what has been an extremely painful marital dispute, to ease the wife's passage as much as possible.
The difficulty that arises in this case is the fact that the phrase "marriage allowance" is, possibly, misleading. We


have explained to the wife—more than once, I feel—that the marriage allowance is, and always has been, an emolument of the officer and in no way a right of the wife, simply because an officer may claim the allowance at his discretion—he may not claim it if he does not wish—and he is entitled to receive it provided, among other things, that he expends the gross amount of the maintenance on his wife or children, and that the Army cannot be brought into disputes between husbands and wives which might arise if we were to treat the marriage allowance, as it were, as something for the wife rather than the husband.
It is true, as my hon. Friend indicated and as I have admitted, that it would be relatively simple to make a change in the present arrangements so that the allowance was paid to the wife rather than to the officer as the allowance is paid under regulations made by the Army Board and the Army Board can at any time change them.

Sir E. Errington: The point here, surely, must be that a husband can escape the responsibility for the whole of his family provided that he is able to show that he is keeping one child. That is the weakness, in my submission.

Mr. Kirk: I do not think it is true, if my hon. Friend accepts my view that it is part of the emoluments of the officer. If it is, then the wife who is aggrieved has the right of recourse to the courts, as any subject of the Crown has, and, indeed, did have in this particular case.
What we believe is that it is far better that we should carry out the wishes of the court wherever possible and only in exceptional circumstances use the powers we have under section 151 of the Army Act to make provision, rather than to put ourselves in the position where we would have to decide whether the wife was aggrieved or not. That we do not believe to be our duty, any more than it is the duty of any civilian employer, to provide that a stoppage be made out of a man's wages. Stoppage can be made if the court orders it to be made. We believe it to be the position we adopt as well.
These cases, as far as I can make out, are extremely rare, where the wife complains that she is not receiving maintenance

from her Service husband, and there is no reason to suppose that, except in isolated instances, officers in receipt of marriage allowance fail to maintain their wives or children. We safeguard the family's position by the conditions on which the allowance is paid. We can pay under the Army Act a quite substantial part of the husband's income for the support of his wife, and there is open to the wife the usual remedy of the civil courts where that is possible. We believe these are sufficient safeguards.
To go further, and pay marriage allowance direct to the wife, would be a drastic departure from the practice of paying an officer for his services and recognising his peculiar needs by special emoluments to meet the circumstances of each individual. I think it would cause great resentment among officers who are maintaining their wives—who are the vast majority—and who could with reason feel that we no longer placed any trust in them to look after their wives and children properly. Furthermore, we would really be interfering in the relations between a man and his wife, and that would inevitably lead us into domestic dispute, if circumstances arose in which we had to decide whether we would pay marriage allowance direct to the wife if she were separated from her husband—

Sir E. Errington: The marriage allowance could be stopped.

Mr. Kirk: We could, of course, stop the marriage allowance, but the husband in this case has maintained his children, and it would have been grossly unfair to the children if we had stopped the marriage allowance for them. We felt—I think rightly—in this case that we would maintain the marriage allowance to the husband, particularly as his wife, as I have said, had opportunity to appeal to the civil courts.
I do recognise that this is an exceptionally difficult problem. I have thought about it a lot since my hon. Friend first brought it to my attention. I think, as I have said, that a lot of the difficulty arises because of the name which is attached to this allowance, but I do not believe the situation would be improved if we made a change of this


kind, and I think that, although very rarely occasions will arise in which it appears that the wife has suffered in this respect, on the whole the system works well and should be maintained.
I hope, therefore, that though my hon. Friend may not be wholly satisfied with my answer, he will at least be satisfied

that the problem he has raised has been very fully investigated indeed, has been looked into with extreme care, and that we really do believe the situation which we have now is the best one available.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.